January 26, 2026
Lucy Lang
January 25, 2026
When on the first Friday night of his second term, President Donald Trump fired 19 federal inspectors general without the required notice to Congress, experts spoke out about the critical need for independence for IGs.
There has otherwise been a muted response: Litigation to overturn the firings is stalled, Congress has failed to effectively step up, and outrage in the press and among the public has been limited. More importantly, inspectors general ourselves have failed to seize upon the opportunity to articulate a vision of effective government corruption fighting for the future.
An inspector general’s traditional tools of oversight audits, public reports and criminal investigations are insufficient unless they are seen to be protecting people who need government most, and unless they are communicated loud and clear to lawmakers and the public.
Quite simply, there can be no public integrity without the public.
For much of American history, inspectors general have operated like a black box, disclosing little to the public and releasing reports and remedial recommendations with little fanfare. With limited resources, IGs need to decide how to prioritize who and what to investigate, and how to share their findings. In both respects, we should be guided by the principle of making government work for those who need it the most.
That’s why in New York, for the 40 years since our office was created, we’ve focused on potential fraud, waste and maladministration in those areas of government that poor and otherwise vulnerable residents rely on the most. For example, we regularly review and investigate the state corrections system. As part of a comprehensive transparency plan we adopted four years ago, we conduct community outreach to educate New Yorkers about our function and take in their complaints and concerns. We use both legacy and social media to regularly update the public about the IG’s work. This is part of a comprehensive transparency plan that we adopted four years ago and which, without compromising investigative work, makes the IG’s efforts more accessible to the press and the public.
Public communication from watchdogs must focus more on human outcomes. IGs traditionally emphasize their value by pointing to the number of reports and arrests or dollars saved that result from their work. But what the public really wants from watchdogs are results, not statistics. Reviews that identify systemic weaknesses and lead to clearer standards, improved training or stronger safeguards can have lasting impact even without criminal charges.
Finally, the public also needs to know when programs are working well. Because the value of successful programs is often high, failing to sustain them can be even more wasteful than fraud.
Public trust is at or near all-time lows. Watchdogs like inspectors general are an important part of the solution to that problem. We must take steps to protect their independence, but so too must we call on IGs to plan for a future that brings the public into their vital work as the watchdogs of public integrity.
Lucy Lang is the inspector general of New York state.