[JumpCrisscross]

> it's unclear anybody could actually do anything

Sure, if we get down to mechanics like that, the courts require someone else to enforce. But at that mechanistic level, so does the President. He isn’t personally escorting her out of the office.

[clessg]

> But at that mechanistic level, so does the President. He isn’t personally escorting her out of the office.

Fair enough, I strongly hope a good number of folks within the government show a backbone and resist unlawful or abusive orders however they can. Unfortunately those same people can easily be fired and replaced with somebody appropriately loyal (as is already happening). So, unfortunately, I'm not terribly optimistic.

Popular backlash seems to be fairly effective so far at least, so there is some hope. (For example the federal funding freeze which ended almost immediately after a flurry of confusion and outrage. Allegedly ended, anyway - it's not exactly clear in reality.)

[JumpCrisscross]

> resist unlawful or abusive orders

These firings don’t appear to be unlawful or abusive. They’re sloppy. But he has the power to fire them.

[clessg]

Inspectors General have a special provision in the law regarding removal or relocation:

> The removal procedure for presidentially appointed IGs is found in Title 5, Section 403(b), which reads in part An Inspector General may be removed from office by the President. If an Inspector General is removed from office or is transferred to another position or location within an establishment, the President shall communicate in writing the substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress (including the appropriate congressional committees), not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a personnel action otherwise authorized by law, other than transfer or removal.

So it's illegal because he didn't notify Congress in advance. That statute was enacted in 2022 specifically to prevent abuses of power such as this.

[JumpCrisscross]

> it's illegal because he didn't notify Congress in advance

I can't see any judge agreeing with this. The notice requirement is separate from the removal. "If an Inspector General is remove from office..." the President has to do X 30 days in advance. It's a bit convoluted to argue that if the second part isn't done, the first part is invalid. The breach is in failure to notice. That can be cured by noticing.

This is boy who cried wolf crap. The firings are unprecedented but totally legal. The breach was in forgetting to tweet some Congressmen. If we go Defcon 1 over paperwork fuckups, there's nowhere left to go when he does something that's substantively illegal.