The White House has put forward two concerning candidates for inspector general positions: former representatives Anthony D’Esposito from New York and Thomas Bell for the Department of Health and Human Services. These nominations don’t exactly align with what taxpayers are hoping for regarding oversight of their hard-earned money and essential government services. It would be wise for the Senate to reject these nominations.
Inspectors general play a crucial, nonpartisan role within federal agencies, tasked with the responsibility of ensuring fair and independent oversight. For over 45 years, they’ve identified hundreds of billions in potential savings and facilitated numerous criminal investigations, resulting in thousands of convictions for fraud within government circles.
For instance, a report released in 2023 by the Small Business Administration indicated that the agency planned to halt collections on approximately $62 billion in delinquent loans. After the findings were published, there was a shift in policy, with the SBA vowing to actively pursue these debts.
Inspectors have notably improved various federal programs, whether it’s addressing the opioid crisis, tackling veteran suicides, stopping neglectful nursing homes, or rooting out corruption—all while protecting American farmers in the process.
While serving as chair of the Inspectors’ Council, I oversaw the evaluation of around 100 candidates for these important roles. We consistently recommended individuals we felt could competently serve as inspectors general. Had D’Esposito and Bell submitted their resumes, they would have been swiftly dismissed due to three major concerns: ethical issues, their partisan political backgrounds, and their involvement in advocacy work.
First, it’s essential for inspectors to be above reproach. Their role is to ensure that federal employees, even those at the highest levels, are held to strict ethical standards. According to the law governing inspectors general, appointees should be chosen based on their integrity and demonstrated abilities.
However, both candidates bring ethical complications. D’Esposito has reportedly faced allegations of bending house ethics rules by offering jobs to both a romantic partner and his fiancée’s daughter. He dismissed the claims as a “partisan hit piece” and insists he maintains the highest ethical standards.
As for Bell, he has been implicated in directing inappropriate payments during his tenure in Virginia, leading to his resignation. It raises serious questions about whether they can truly serve as ethical watchdogs.
These aren’t trivial accusations. They strike at the core of what an inspector general’s role should be. With ethical concerns hanging over them, they simply shouldn’t be considered for these appointments; they need investigation, at the very least.
Moreover, the strong partisan ties of these candidates exacerbate the situation. It’s crucial for inspectors to maintain an apolitical stance to effectively serve the public interest. The relevant laws dictate that appointees should be chosen without regard to political affiliation.
It’s hard to see how these candidates were chosen for anything other than their partisan ties. Bell has spent a significant part of his career working for Republicans, and critics have branded him as a “political operative.” Similarly, D’Esposito has publicly criticized the Biden administration on various fronts and did so even recently.
Having a partisan background isn’t inherently problematic, but it becomes an issue when it undermines the integrity needed for an inspector general. Their role should involve neutrality, effectively evaluating programs without any perceived bias.
If an inspector has a history tied to specific political agendas, it raises doubts about their ability to provide unbiased, objective evaluations. Would D’Esposito’s reports be perceived as impartial if he has previously criticized Biden-era programs? Would Bell’s assessments hold up if he’s been involved in advocacy against certain policies?
It’s this exact mix of ethical concerns, political affiliations, and advocacy that calls these nominations into question. I genuinely worry they could become more concerned with political maneuverings than the watchdog function we so desperately need for taxpayer accountability.
In many ways, these picks resemble the troubling nomination of Matt Gaetz for Attorney General. These individuals are not only unqualified but their past behavior disqualifies them from serving effectively. It’s clear they should not be confirmed, just as Gaetz wasn’t.
Mark Greenblatt served as an inspector general for the US Department of the Interior from August 2019 to January 2025. He was also chair and vice-chair of the Inspector General’s integrity and efficiency committee during his tenure.
