HB3735 amends title 5 to establish an Office of Inspector General within the Executive Office of the President, with the President appointing an IG within 90 days of enactment. It also tightens removal standards for IGs, while carving out an independent-agency exception with a defined list of entities.
A technical amendment to a related measure is included to clarify force of law and timing for related provisions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates the Office of Inspector General in the Executive Office of the President and requires the President to appoint the IG within 90 days of enactment. It also imposes removal standards for IGs, restricting presidential removals to inefficiency, malfeasance, or neglect, with an exception for IGs serving in independent agencies.
Who It Affects
Directly affects the Executive Office of the President and the new IG office, IGs in related offices, entities defined as independent agencies, and designated Federal entities that oversee IGs.
Why It Matters
Strengthens official accountability within the EOP and clarifies when IGs can be removed, potentially affecting oversight dynamics across a broad swath of federal entities.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 1 names the act the Integrity in Government Act of 2025. Section 2 adds a formal Office of Inspector General to the Executive Office of the President and requires the President to appoint an IG within 90 days after enactment.
The IG’s mandate is to provide independent oversight over EOP activities, conducting audits and investigations with the authority that mirrors other OIGs in federal agencies. The bill also tightens removal standards for IGs appointed by the President, limiting removals to inefficiency, malfeasance, or neglect.
An exception is created for IGs in independent agencies, which are governed by a different removal framework. Section 3 contains a technical amendment to a related measure (H.R. 7326), giving that section force of law and addressing the timing of amendments.
These changes reflect a balance between robust independence for select IGs and consolidated accountability within the EOP.
Overall, the proposal aims to embed stronger internal oversight within the EOP while preserving a definable set of independent-entity protections. By setting a clear appointment window and explicit removal grounds, it seeks to reduce ambiguity around IG tenure and accountability.
The technical amendment adds a connective tissue to related legislation, ensuring coherence across statutes that touch inspector general authorities.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires the President to appoint the EOP Inspector General within 90 days of enactment.
Removal is generally limited to inefficiency, malfeasance, or neglect.
Independent-agency IGs are exempt from the presidential-removal restriction under the bill.
A defined list of independent agencies is used to determine who is exempt from the general removal rule.
A technical amendment to H.R. 7326 is included to give its provisions force of law and address timing.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
Names the act the Integrity in Government Act of 2025, establishing its citation and formal identity for future reference.
Office of Inspector General in the Executive Office of the President
Section 2(a) inserts the EOP IG into Title 5 and requires the President to appoint the IG within 90 days of enactment, following the standard appointment process. This creates a dedicated internal watchdog for the Executive Office of the President, with authority to oversee EOP programs and operations.
Removal Standards and Independent Agencies
Section 2(b) imposes removal standards: IGs appointed by the President may not be removed except for inefficiency, malfeasance, or neglect. An exception applies to IGs in independent agencies, for whom the presidential removal constraint does not apply—these IGs fall under a defined list of entities treated as independent agencies.
Technical Amendment and Effective Date
Section 3 provides a technical amendment to H.R. 7326, giving the referenced provision the force of law and specifying its effective treatment relative to other amendments. This creates a cross-statutory alignment intended to stabilize related IG provisions across statutes.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- The Executive Office of the President gains formal internal oversight through a specifically empowered IG, improving governance and accountability.
- Inspectors General within the EOP and offices created or reorganized under the act gain a clear appointment path and defined removal grounds, contributing to greater job security and legitimacy of oversight roles.
- Congressional oversight bodies (e.g., House Oversight and Government Reform Committee) benefit from a clearer, more independent reporting channel to monitor executive activity.
- Independent agencies enumerated in the law benefit from a defined, potentially clearer framework for their IGs’ independence relative to presidential removal powers.
Who Bears the Cost
- The President and the EOP will incur administrative and personnel costs to establish the IG’s office, hire staff, and fund audits and investigations.
- For designated Federal entities that oversee IGs, there may be transitional costs associated with implementing new removal rules and establishing reporting lines.
- Independent agencies listed in the bill could incur costs associated with accommodating alternative removal mechanisms and ensuring ongoing independence in practice.
- Taxpayers may bear higher oversight costs as agencies expand auditing and compliance activities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing executive accountability with IG independence: should the President hold tighter levers of oversight within the EOP, or should independent IGs retain strong insulation from presidential removal, especially when oversight uncovers executive-branch concerns?
The bill introduces a centralized oversight mechanism by placing an IG inside the EOP while preserving a separate, independent-path framework for certain IGs. One tension is whether tighter presidential accountability within the EOP might affect perceived or actual independence of IGs in independent agencies.
The defined list of independent agencies creates a potential ambiguity around where the line of influence lies, and how these IGs interact with the President and their own heads. The technical amendment to a prior measure also raises questions about timing, applicability, and interactions with other statutory provisions.
Implementation hinges on how agencies interpret and operationalize the new appointment window and the revised removal standards, and on whether the enumerated independent agencies are consistently treated as outside the President’s removal authority in practice.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.