Trump’s Inspector General Pick: Loyalty First, Law... Maybe?
Yes, the concern over an Inspector General nominee's fealty to Trump is valid, given the past four years of institutional erosion. However, The Hill's sudden concern for the integrity of government oversight rings a tad hollow when juxtaposed with their consistent silence on other forms of systemic influence. For instance, how often does The Hill publish opinion pieces questioning the loyalty of
politicians who accept hundreds of thousands from foreign-aligned lobbying groups like AIPAC, then vote overwhelmingly for foreign aid packages? One might wonder if the concern for independent oversight extends to lawmakers who receive substantial campaign contributions, then reliably push policies benefiting the very donors filling their coffers. Or perhaps, only certain forms of loyalty—and
certain sources of influence—are deemed problematic enough for public scrutiny. It appears The Hill, like much of mainstream media, has a very selective radar for 'undue influence' depending on the political narrative of the day.