Author: Chris Piper
The Trump administration is not only removing inspectors general in unprecedented fashion, but also systematically reducing the capacity of the offices they lead.
President Donald Trump’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposes steep cuts to Office of Inspectors General funding and forecasts further staffing reductions. If implemented, these plans would heighten an existing pattern of the administration hollowing out oversight and accountability functions across the federal government.
Our analysis of agency budget justifications reveals a clear pattern:
- The president is requesting to cut Cabinet department OIG appropriations by 12% on average relative to 2024 levels, with some agencies facing cuts of nearly 30%.
- The Trump administration projects OIG staffing will fall an additional 9% on average in Cabinet departments, leaving OIG offices nearly 20% smaller than when the administration began.
- These cuts build on reductions already underway: The average Cabinet department OIG already saw staffing fall 10% in the administration’s first year.
Inspector general offices are one of the federal government’s most important internal watchdogs, conducting audits and investigations that save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars every year.
Steep budget cuts and continued staffing reductions would leave OIG offices with far less capacity to conduct the audits and investigations that keep federal agencies accountable and protect taxpayers from waste and fraud.
The president’s budget proposal would significantly reduce inspector general funding
In 2025, President Trump began undermining the capacity of inspectors general by firingat least 17 presidentially appointed inspectors general, leaving over 70% of Senate-confirmed positions presently vacant. Just 32% were vacant when he took office.
His fiscal 2027 budget proposal extends this effort, shifting from removing leadership to reducing the capacity of the offices themselves. Under the proposed budget, Cabinet department OIGs would receive an average of 12% less in appropriations than they received in 2024.
These reductions are not evenly distributed. While the president seeks only modest reductions for the departments of Health and Human Services (-2%), State (-4%) and Defense (-6%), he has requested substantial cuts for the departments of the Interior (-28%), Justice (-28%) and Commerce (-21%). Notably, the inspectors general overseeing two of the more modestly cut departments, HHS and DOD, are Trump appointees confirmed within the last four months.
Budget reductions of this magnitude would directly constrain what OIGs can do.
Audits and investigations require time and resources. A 28% budget reduction does not simply mean doing the same work more efficiently. It means doing less of it. Fewer audits conducted, fewer investigations opened and fewer recommendations made to agencies—and longer timelines for the work that does get done.
The Department of Transportation OIG made clear in its budget justification that the Office of Management and Budget did not follow their requested funding level, saying the 13% budget reduction they face would “substantially inhibit” the office’s ability to “fully execute its mission and promote the economy and efficiency of DOT programs and operations and detect and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.”
The president’s proposal is just that—a proposal. Congress ultimately determines OIG appropriation levels and, despite requests for reductions in prior budget proposals, has not allowed funding to fall on average since fiscal 2024.
OIG staffing has already shrunk—and the administration plans to cut further
Thus far, the administration has had more success reducing OIG staffing than budgets.
Even without changing budget levels, President Trump reduced the average Cabinet department OIG staff by 10% in his first year. The departments of Energy (-23%) and the Treasury (-30%) have experienced particularly sharp reductions.
The administration projects staffing will fall an additional 9%, leaving the average Cabinet department OIG nearly 20% smaller than it was prior to the Trump administration. The departments of Energy, Justice and the Treasury are each projected to see their staff reduced by more than 25% from 2024 baseline levels.
The Department of Justice OIG alone is projected to lose over 140 employees. A 27% smaller workforce means a materially diminished capacity to detect fraud, conduct oversight and respond to emerging issues. This is particularly true for actions of a politically sensitive nature, where institutional independence and sufficient staffing are most critical.
Given that the administration has more control over staffing, it could achieve its desired reductions even if Congress maintains spending levels. Unlike appropriations, which require congressional action to cut, the administration can reduce OIG staff through reductions in force, voluntary separation incentives and simply leaving vacancies unfilled. This budget proposal could read as their intent to do just that.
The most targeted OIGs share a common thread: vacant leadership, fewer staff and smaller budgets
The president’s efforts to undermine inspectors general have been systematic, not random. The five departmental OIGs facing the steepest combined reductions share a consistent pattern: These are the same offices whose inspectors general were fired or departed at the start of the administration, and for which no nominee is pending.
These actions are compounding—a deliberate effort to leave OIG offices without the leadership, resources or personnel needed to function effectively.
An office operating under an acting inspector general, with a staff 21-35% smaller than it was two years ago and a budget facing further cuts, is not simply a leaner operation. It is a fundamentally hampered one.
Congress must act to preserve independent oversight
Congress should step in to preserve the administration’s own stated goals—an efficient, accountable government—by pushing back on proposed OIG budget cuts in the appropriations process, as it has done in prior years.
But appropriations alone are not enough.
Congress should also monitor whether the administration is achieving the same ends through other means—by not spending appropriated funds through impoundment or by leaving positions deliberately unfilled—and press the administration to justify any staffing reductions that materially diminish government oversight. Additionally, President Trump should nominate qualified, independent individuals to fill the inspector general vacancies that have accumulated across the government.