Ben Mannes: Noem’s fall shows why independent watchdogs matter at every level of government

After a contentious Congressional hearing, President Trump’s announcement of a forced departure of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem came because of questionable ethics practices, and not the political firestorm following the controversial ICE surge in Minneapolis.  This underscores how fragile public trust becomes when agencies that spend taxpayer dollars lack strong, independent oversight. Her ouster, triggered only after the bruising congressional hearing, is a reminder that when watchdogs fail to act early, accountability arrives late and in the most political way possible.

Hearings did what oversight should have done

As a compliance professional and former member of the Inspector General community, I have to note that while House and Senate panels dragged Noem’s stewardship of the Department of Homeland Security into the spotlight, grilling her over management, spending, and efforts to pressure internal watchdogs, this should have been prevented or mitigated internally (and quietly) before becoming a political scandal used against the Trump administration. Senators in both parties had already signaled alarm, with some calling her tenure “a disaster” and threatening to hold up nominations until she answered their questions. The hearings became a public audit in real time, surfacing concerns that should have been identified quietly and sooner by institutional checks inside DHS itself.

Once those hearings aired, the political fallout was swift. President Donald Trump announced on social media that he was removing Noem and planned to nominate Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin as her replacement, jettisoning her as the face of his hard-line immigration and security agenda. He simultaneously moved her to a new envoy role, underscoring that the change was less about a coherent reform plan at DHS and more about containing a scandal that had become a liability.

Where the inspector general fell short

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) exists precisely to keep such controversies from festering into televised showdowns and emergency shake-ups. 

Inspectors general are supposed to operate independently of agency leadership, rooting out waste, fraud and abuse before they metastasize into crises. Yet in DHS’s case, recent correspondence revealed department leadership pressing the inspector general’s office for a list of ongoing investigations and invoking a little-used statute that allows the secretary to terminate certain probes. This pressure is against the OIG independence best practices outlined in the Association of Inspectors’ General “Green Book” for management, and is normally met with a public report.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth warned that the communication looked like an implied threat aimed at discouraging scrutiny of “sensitive or controversial matters,” including those that might touch the secretary or close aides. When an agency’s top lawyer is reminding its watchdog that the secretary can shut down inquiries, it becomes harder for that watchdog to freely flag questionable spending or management decisions. That environment helps explain why issues that should have been documented, reported and corrected internally instead spilled out under the glare of partisan cameras.

Politics at the top of public‑funded agencies

Noem’s rise and fall at DHS also highlights a deeper structural problem: key posts in agencies that control vast budgets often go to political loyalists, not subject-matter professionals. Her nomination surprised many precisely because she had neither DHS experience nor a law enforcement background, even though the department houses some of the country’s most powerful enforcement and intelligence components. Her selection owed much to the backing of influential Trump advisers and immigration hawks, who saw her as a reliable partner in a White House–driven border strategy.

That dynamic is hardly unique to DHS. Cabinet secretaries, state agency chiefs and big‑city department heads are frequently chosen for their political alignment, fundraising prowess, or personal relationships rather than proven track records running complex institutions. The result is a recurring pattern: leaders arrive with strong partisan credentials but limited operational experience, then lean heavily on political staff while navigating multibillion‑dollar portfolios with inadequate internal challenge.

DHS has never had a law‑enforcement chief

For DHS, this pattern is particularly striking. The department oversees entities such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, the Secret Service and a dedicated intelligence office, yet the position of homeland security secretary has consistently gone to political figures, lawyers, administrators or former governors—not career law enforcement officers. Noem fit that mold: a former governor and member of Congress whose experience in disaster management and cybersecurity was cited by supporters, but who lacked front‑line enforcement credentials. 

That history raises a sharper question as DHS lurches from one controversy to another: should an agency with such sweeping arrest, surveillance and security powers be led, at least once, by someone who has actually carried a badge and gun? Critics argue that a secretary with deep operational grounding might be better positioned to respect investigative independence, recognize red flags in spending and resist efforts to muzzle internal watchdogs.

Think about it in a local lens: Has there ever been a school superintendent who has never taught or administered a school? Has a surgeon general ever not been a physician? Can you be a judge without first being a lawyer?

Exactly.

With politicians making appointments, we have to ask if their appointees at any level (to include state and local authorities) are hiring people because of the strength of their resumes, not their political affiliations.  

Noem’s removal may calm the immediate political storm, but it does little to fix the accountability gaps that allowed it to build in the first place. Independent inspectors general need explicit protection from subtle and overt pressure, including attempts by agency leadership to track or terminate active investigations. Legislatures at every level can bolster that independence by tightening limits on political interference and requiring regular public reporting on high‑risk spending and management issues.

Equally important, presidents, governors and mayors could treat public‑funded agencies less as instruments of partisan agendas and more as institutions that require credible, experienced, and accountable stewardship. Noem’s tenure at DHS shows what happens when those safeguards fail: oversight arrives only after the cameras are rolling, and taxpayers are left to wonder who, if anyone, was watching before everything went wrong.

Based in Philadelphia, A. Benjamin Mannes is a consultant and subject matter expert in security and criminal justice reform based on his own experiences on both sides of the criminal justice system. He is a corporate compliance executive who has served as a federal and municipal law enforcement officer, and as the former Director, Office of Investigations with the American Board of Internal Medicine. @PublicSafetySME