Statement on DHS Inspector General Threats
Bethesda, MD, February 10, 2026 – The Department of Homeland Security’s threats to shut down audits and investigations by its Office of Inspector General are a shot across the bow to inspector general independence. Congress and the American people should be deeply alarmed by these efforts to interfere with important independent oversight.
Inspector general independence is not a procedural formality—it is essential to effective accountability and public trust. When agency leadership attempts to intimidate or obstruct an inspector general, it undermines one of the most important safeguards against waste, abuse, and misconduct.
DHS OIG posted last week that it is reviewing several aspects of DHS’s immigration enforcement efforts to assess compliance with federal law, adherence to DHS policy, and protections for civil rights. According to NBC News, these reviews include ongoing examinations into U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement hiring and training, safeguards to prevent the arrest of U.S. citizens, conditions at ICE detention facilities, and the use of Border Patrol agents in cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, and Minneapolis. These are among the most controversial issues in our society, and DHS OIG should be commended—not threatened—for conducting this work. This is precisely how independent oversight is supposed to function. But NBC reported that DHS officials have threatened multiple times to shut down the OIG’s oversight efforts and have demanded that the OIG disclose “every active audit, inspection, and criminal investigation.”
Such actions strike at the core of inspector general independence. While the DHS Secretary does have the authority to terminate specific OIG audits and investigations, that authority is highly limited: only if the Secretary determines that such action is necessary to prevent the disclosure of sensitive information “to preserve the national security, or to prevent a significant impairment to the interests of the United States.” This provision is designed to prevent the disclosure of information that could hurt the United States, not to avoid politically uncomfortable oversight. Notably, the IG Act has comparable provisions applying to other federal agencies and their OIGs, but to my knowledge they have never been invoked by any agency in this manner.
The demand that the OIG disclose “every active audit, inspection, and criminal investigation” also is problematic. First, under the standards governing audits and inspections, such examinations are virtually always announced in advance to agency leadership anyway. This raises the question of why DHS would seek information it already should possess. Second, the demand for active criminal investigations should be a non-starter. Those matters should proceed in coordination with the Department of Justice—not under pressure or interference from DHS leadership that may have a direct stake in their outcomes. While the IG Act contains provisions that heighten the Secretary’s authorities with respect to OIG matters that could harm national security interests, those provisions are designed to protect national security, not to undermine legitimate oversight.
The threat to shut down OIG oversight, coupled with the demand for a list of OIG investigations, suggests DHS officials are trying to protect their own interests, not America’s. These actions appear aimed at avoiding scrutiny, not learning the truth about whether DHS programs are operating lawfully and effectively. Congress and the American people should pay close attention to what happens with these DHS OIG oversight matters and hold DHS leadership accountable if they shut them down or negatively influence them for political reasons.
Mark Lee Greenblatt is a former Inspector General of the U.S. Department of the Interior and Chair of the Council of Inspectors General, as well as the author of Valor: Unsung Heroes from Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Home Front (Rowman & Littlefield). More information about Greenblatt is available at www.markleegreenblatt.com.
###