President Trump’s purge of 18 inspectors general removed the independent watchdogs for virtually all of Cabinet agencies, including myself and several longtime stalwarts in the oversight community.

The purported justification (as stated in the White House emails that fired us) was due to Trump’s “changing priorities.” But many have argued that it reflects something far more sinister: a desire to decapitate Offices of Inspector General and leave them so weakened that they cannot conduct meaningful oversight.

Here are three warning signs that will tell you whether we were the proverbial canaries in the coal mine.

The first sign is how the White House handles the now-vacant seats with acting inspectors general. Current law provides that, if the inspector general position becomes vacant, the first assistant assumes the role of acting inspector general. These first assistants are usually the deputy inspectors general, who by and large are tremendous public servants dedicated to rooting out waste, fraud and abuse inside their agencies.

But in his first administration, Trump named political appointees in those acting roles. That meant they were wearing two hats — one executing the administration’s policies and the other overseeing those very programs.

That so-called “dual-hatting,” however, presents inextricable and unresolvable conflicts of interest. How can an official be viewed as fairly and independently assessing an agency’s programs when they are beholden to the political leadership for their job, not to mention their salary and bonus?

Unlike an inspector general, whose salary is set by statute and........

© The Hill