The inspector-general position at the State Department has been vacant for more than three years. President Donald Trump removed the previous inspector general, Steve Linick, in May 2020 as part of a series of firings that one article called the “slow-motion Friday night massacre of inspectors general.” Yet, more than two years into a new administration, President Joe Biden still has not nominated anyone for the vacancy. Instead, the vacancy has been filled by a string of acting IGs, which are not the same as a confirmed one.    

Other agencies have also lacked a permanent inspector general for too long. The Department of the Treasury inspector-general position has been vacant for almost four years; the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) position has been vacant for more than two. Four other agencies are also waiting for the president to nominate an inspector general.

President Biden should nominate candidates for these positions immediately. The delays are not good for the inspectors general’s offices, for the agencies, and for public confidence in oversight of the agencies.

Inspectors general perform a difficult but essential role. Their job is to independently audit, evaluate, and investigate agency programs and operations. They expose waste, fraud, and abuse, and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government operations. They return billions of dollars to the federal Treasury. They hold powerful government officials accountable for alleged misconduct. They promote transparency in government and inform taxpayers how their money is being spent. In a previous article, I called them some of the most important public servants you’ve never heard of.    

[Glenn Fine: The most important public servants you’ve never heard of]

And yet, too many of these crucial positions are currently filled by acting inspectors general. In the State Department, for example, the inspector general’s office has been led by acting IGs for lengthy periods. Before Linick’s tenure, a foreign-service officer served as the acting inspector general for five years, throughout the entire first term of the Obama administration, from 2008 to 2013. Linick was finally nominated and confirmed in 2013, and he provided stable leadership for seven years. After he was fired in 2020, several more acting inspectors general have led the office, some for short periods of time, others for longer. This instability in permanent leadership can hurt an inspector general’s office and its long-term ability to manage its challenging mission.

To be sure, many acting inspectors general do their best in their unpopular role even though they do not know how long their tenure will be. I was both a confirmed inspector general of the Department of Justice for more than a decade (from 2000 to 2011), and served as the acting inspector general of the Department of Defense for more than four years (from 2016 to 2020). President Trump removed me as the acting DOD inspector general around the time he fired the State Department inspector general and several others.

When I was the acting DOD inspector general, I tried to make the same hard decisions that a confirmed one would. But serving as an acting inspector general is not the same as being the permanent one. Some officials in an agency—as well as some in the inspector general’s office—think they can wait out an acting inspector general, who may not be in the position for a long time. Agency officials may not respond to the acting inspector general’s reports and recommendations with the same urgency. A permanent inspector general is more likely to implement long-term strategic changes or take difficult personnel actions within the office. It is easier for a permanent inspector general to recruit talented employees and managers who know that the inspector general is likely to remain in office. Congress and the public sometimes question whether an acting inspector general is holding the agency accountable in the same way as a confirmed one, no matter the qualifications, experience, or track record of the acting inspector general.

President Biden has long been a fervent supporter of inspectors general. When he was the vice president, he worked closely with inspectors general to provide oversight of $800 billion in Recovery Act funding. He has regularly praised the work of inspectors general, saying in his most recent State of the Union address: “Before I came to office many inspector generals were sidelined. Fraud was rampant. Last year, I told you, the watchdogs are back.”

[David A. Graham: Trump is attacking the final safeguard against executive abuses]

Yet despite this welcome support, more than two years into his administration, he still has not nominated an inspector general for the State Department, the Treasury Department, or USAID. There are suitable candidates, both within the inspector-general community and elsewhere in government. In the past, some of the best inspectors general had previous experience running other inspector-general offices in smaller agencies, or serving as deputy or assistant inspectors general. President Biden could select someone like that for the vacant positions.

Some agency heads resist the nomination of an inspector general for their agency. Some agencies even opposed the creation of an inspector general, arguing that such oversight was not necessary. The Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Defense, among others, initially argued they did not need an inspector general. Now the Supreme Court resists oversight and an inspector general for the federal judiciary. But every organization needs oversight, even the federal judiciary.

Certainly, it is important to pick the right person for the position—someone with the experience, temperament, and backbone to handle the challenging assignment. An ineffective or inexperienced inspector general can undermine an inspector general’s office, hamstring an agency, and impair the overall credibility of inspectors general, as evidenced by the problems in the Department of Homeland Security inspector general’s office.

But it should not take more than two years for the administration to interview, vet, and select an appropriate candidate for vacant inspector-general positions. Even after a nomination, it will still be a long time, if history is a guide, before the Senate confirms the nominees.

The president should nominate inspectors general for the vacant positions now. There is no excuse for the lengthy delays in filling these important roles.