The White House recently announced two troubling nominees for inspector general positions: former Rep. Anthony D’Esposito (R-N.Y.) for the Department of Labor inspector general and Thomas Bell for inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services.

These candidates are the opposite of what taxpayers need in these positions to protect their tax dollars and essential government programs and services. The U.S. Senate should serve its constituents and reject these nominees.

Inspectors general are the nonpartisan watchdogs inside federal agencies, tasked with conducting fair, objective and independent oversight of the federal government. For more than 45 years, they have uncovered hundreds of billions of dollars in potential savings in federal programs, not to mention conducting criminal investigations leading to thousands of convictions for defrauding the government and other crimes.

For example, a 2023 report from the Small Business Administration inspector general revealed that the administration had decided to stop collecting on certain delinquent loans totaling roughly $62 billion. After the Office of the Inspector General's report, the Small Business Administration reversed course and announced plans to pursue those deadbeat loans aggressively, which could recover as much as $30 billion for American taxpayers.

Inspector general oversight has improved the full scope of federal programs for the American public, from preventing veteran suicides to fighting the opioid epidemic, stopping abusive nursing homes, ferreting out corrupt officials, averting bank failures and protecting American farmers.

When I served as the chair of the Council of the Inspectors General, I led the panel that recommended inspector general candidates to the White House, as required by the Inspector General Act. We reviewed roughly 100 applicants over the years and recommended qualified candidates who we believed would make successful inspectors general.

If the panel had received the resumes of Bell and Esposito for appointments, I am confident we would have rejected them outright for three important reasons: ethical clouds hanging over them, extensive partisan political backgrounds and policy advocacy.

First, as watchdogs, inspectors general must be above reproach. Their offices root out ethical........

© The Hill