Posts

Trump Fired the People Who Could Dispute His False Claims about Ukraine Aid

/24 Comments/in /by

Trump is having a tantrum because Volodymyr Zelenskyy called out Trump for parroting Russia disinformation.

The President sent out a post riddled with false claims, including that Zelenskyy has admitted to losing half the money the US has given.

Politifact debunked that claim earlier this month (while catching Elon Musk in — gasp!! — a lie about it).

“One-hundred billion (dollars) of these 177, or 200, some people even say, we have never received,” Zelenskyy said, according to the translation of the clip. “We are talking about specific things, because we got it not with money but with weapons. We got $70 something billion worth of it. There is training, there is additional transport. There are not only prices for weapons, there were humanitarian programs, social et cetera.”

It was not clear what exactly Zelenskyy was including in his accounting of the military support Ukraine has received, but his comments align with the public data on how Ukraine aid is being spent.

The money is not missing or laundered, as some posts claimed. It’s being spent as Congress intended: on U.S. weapons manufacturing, nonmilitary support in Ukraine and support elsewhere in the region.

I’m particularly interested in the disinformation that Trump and Elon are spreading about the money Ukraine has received (though this is not new — it’s one way Trump undercut support for funding last year).

As you know, I’ve been pretty obsessed (one, two, three) by the way that Trump and DOGE have repeatedly pointed to fraud identified by some of the Inspectors General that Trump fired to substantiate their claim there are hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud to find.

Effectively, DOGE is using Trump’s own mismanagement of COVID to justify their assault on the federal government.

But that’s not the only subgroup of Inspectors General Trump targeted on his fourth day on the job. By terminating State Department Inspector General Cardell Richardson and DOD Inspector General Robert Storch, followed weeks later by Paul Martin after he released a report showing the impact of cuts on USAID, Trump has fired the main people responsible for oversight of aid to Ukraine.

Indeed, both Richardson and Storch talked about how their firing will disrupt the work of tracking the aid to Ukraine.

In his declaration submitted with their wrongful termination lawsuit, Richardson emphasized that by firing him, Trump has prevented him from continuing to supervise that oversight work.

4. The work of the OIG advances U.S. foreign policy objectives and the nation’s national security. For instance, my office was responsible for overseeing programs that provided funding to support Ukraine in its war against Russia. Overseeing programs that fund initiatives in other countries makes OIG’s work uniquely challenging.

5. This crucial work is ongoing, and my unlawful termination has prevented me from continuing to supervise it during my lawful term of office.

And Storch tied his role in supervising Ukraine funding to key national security interests. He specifically described the import of tracking “the most sensitive equipment and technology provided to Ukraine.”

3. The work of DoD’s Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) helps to safeguard U.S. national security. For example, as Inspector General, I was the Lead Inspector General, and then the congressionally-designated Special Inspector General for Operation Atlantic Resolve (“SIG OAR”), which operation includes U.S. assistance to Ukraine. I worked closely with colleagues from the Offices of Inspector General for the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and others from across the oversight community on this and the other two ongoing overseas contingency operations, which relate to countering ISIS and assisting local partners in Iraq and Syria (Operation Inherent Resolve) and to furthering U.S. policy goals in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Sentinel).

4. As SIG OAR, I was responsible for all oversight related to U.S. security assistance to Ukraine, and for coordinating and reporting on oversight of all aspects of U.S. assistance. One of many areas where my office’s programmatic oversight has been particularly consequential is evaluating DoD’s efforts to ensure the accountability of the most sensitive equipment and technology provided to Ukraine. As has been publicly reported, assistance to Ukraine became a highly partisan issue, and it was only because of the non-partisan nature of the OIG that we were able to do this impactful oversight and to do it authoritatively and credibly. All told, as of January 2025, during my tenure as Inspector General, my office had (1) issued approximately four dozen programmatic oversight reports covering all aspects of U.S. security assistance, and (2) coordinated with our oversight colleagues on dozens more, all as transparently reported on the public website whose development I led, www.UkraineOversight.gov.

Given Trump’s abject capitulation to Putin and his overt efforts to replace Zelenskyy, I can’t help but wonder whether blinding this oversight was part of the plan. As Storch alludes, the US sent a whole bunch of sophisticated tools to Ukraine, and I’m sure there are people who’d like to put them to uses other than helping Ukraine repel Russia’s attack.

Whatever the case, when reporters push back on Trump’s false claims about Zelenskyy, they might include a question about why, if he cared about oversight of the money spent with Ukraine, one of his first acts in office amounted to gutting it.

Update: Daniel Dale has a fact check of all the lies Trump is telling about Zelenskyy.

Share this entry

Trump Fired Inspectors General Who Identified $183.5 Billion in Waste, Fraud, and Abuse

/69 Comments/in , /by

There have and will be a slew of lawsuits in response to Trump’s attack on government. But this lawsuit, from eight of the Inspectors General that Trump fired on January 24, has been much anticipated. [docket]

That’s partly because Congress just strengthened the laws protecting Inspectors Generals, in response to Trump’s firing of some in his first term, as the suit lays out.

63. Congress responded in 2022 by further amending the IG Act. The Securing Inspector General Independence Act of 2022, see supra ¶6, enacted by overwhelming margins in both houses of Congress, procedural protections before an IG can be removed or placed on nonduty status, designated that a “first assistant” would automatically replace an IG in the event of a vacancy, and required the President to communicate reasons for not making a formal nomination to fill an IG vacancy after a certain period of time.

64. The 2022 amendments also strengthened the procedural safeguards on removing an IG. Prior to the amendments, the IG Act had required the President to provide 30 days’ notice to both houses of Congress and “reasons for any such removal.” The 2022 amendments require the President to provide 30 days’ notice to both houses of Congress, including appropriate congressional committees, and to “communicate in writing the substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons, for any such removal.” 5 U.S.C. §403(b). With the 2022 amendments included, the relevant provisions now reads as follows:

An Inspector General may be removed from office by the President. If an Inspector General is removed from office or is transferred to another position or location within an establishment, the President shall communicate in writing the substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress (including to the appropriate congressional committees), not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a personnel action otherwise authorized by law, other than transfer or removal.

65. These procedural provisions ensure that Congress or members of Congress can, if it or they deem it appropriate, seek to persuade the President not to go forward with a noticed removal. Indeed, the legislative history of the Inspector General Reform Act indicates that Congress added the notice requirement to “allow for an appropriate dialogue with Congress in the event that the planned transfer or removal is viewed as an inappropriate or politically motivated attempt to terminate an effective Inspector General.” See S. Rep. No. 110-262, at 4 (2008)

If Congress has any power to limit how the President fires someone, then this suit will uphold that power (a large team from Wilmer Cutler, led by former Solicitor General Seth Waxman, are representing the plaintiffs).

But it’s also because the plaintiffs in this suit embody everything Trump claims he wants to do with DOGE. Elon Musk claims he’s hunting for waste, fraud, and corruption in government agencies he’s wildly unfamiliar with. These civil servants have been doing this, some of them, for four decades.

Indeed, one thing the suit lists, for each of the plaintiffs, is how much material impact they have had in their role (with one exception, exclusively in the IG position from which they were fired, which the report explains is:

“Monetary impact” describes the estimated financial savings or losses that could result from implementing recommendations made in an IG’s audits, inspections, or evaluations, essentially quantifying the potential cost-benefit of addressing issues like waste, fraud, and abuse in a government agency or program. See CIGIE, Toolkit for Identifying and Reporting Monetary Impact, at 1 (June 18, 2024), https://www.ignet.gov/sites/default/files/files/Toolkit%20for%20Identifying%20and%20Reporting%20Monetary%20Impact.pdf.

Some monetary-impact estimates reported herein also consider monetary benefits associated with IG investigations.

And while there’s some inconsistency in the reporting (for example, Sandra Bruce included stuff from when she was Acting IG during Trump’s first term whereas some of the others left out susbstantial terms in other IG roles, Larry Turner’s number — for Department of Labor — seems quite high, and Mike Ware does not include $30 billion seized or returned pursuant to investigations he oversaw), the Inspectors General describe identifying $183.5 billion in material impact.

As noted in this post, that includes substantial work cleaning up after COVID relief rolled out by Trump, particularly from Mike Ware, work which lead DOGE Treasury Official Thomas Krause relied on to suggest that DOGE could be effective. In Ware testimony to Congress that Krause cited, Ware described up to $200 billion in fraud just in Small Business related relief alone.

Using OIG’s investigative casework, prior OIG reporting, advanced data analytics, and additional review procedures, we estimate SBA disbursed more than $200 billion in potentially fraudulent COVID-19 EIDLs and PPP loans. This estimate represents approximately 17 percent of disbursed COVID-19 EIDLs and PPP funds — specifically, more than $136 billion COVID-19 EIDLs and $64 billion in PPP funds. Since SBA did not have an established strong internal control environment for approving and disbursing program funds, there was an insufficient barrier against fraudsters accessing funds that should have been available for eligible business owners adversely affected by the pandemic.

That’s what Trump did by firing Ware and the others: halt proven efforts to do what DOGE is incapable of — and only pretending — to do.

Which is another reason to keep an eye on this lawsuit.

Share this entry

Portfolio Items