White House misses Senators' deadline to provide reasons for firing Michael Atkinson

Loss of confidence without further explanation not sufficient explanation, senators wrote

The White House has missed a deadline mandated by senators to provide reasons for the firing of Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, as required by law.

On 9 April eight senators wrote to President Trump in a letter ordering that he provide a more detailed reasoning for the removal of Inspector General Atkinson by 13 April.

Upon firing Mr Atkinson, Mr Trump wrote to the House and Senate intelligence committees saying it was “vital” he had confidence in the independent government watchdog and “that is no longer the case with regard to this inspector general”.

However, the letter expressed that “congressional intent is clear that expression of lost confidence, without further explanation, is not sufficient to fulfil the requirements of the statute.”

It demanded that Mr Trump outline that more detailed reasons that explain Mr Atkinson was not let go for “reasons unrelated to [his] performance.”

In the note the senators explicitly set the White House a deadline of Monday 13 April however the HuffPost reported that as of early Tuesday morning, this deadline had not been met, according to a spokesperson for Senator Grassley’s office.

The White House declined to comment when contacted by The Independent.

Mr Trump fired the US inspector general for the intelligence community earlier this month.

Michael Atkinson said in a statement at the time that he was “disappointed and saddened” by the decision.

The Inspector had handled the complaint made by an anonymous CIA whistle-blower that became the basis for the president’s impeachment.

Current law requires that the president inform the Senate and House Intelligence Committees in writing of the reasons for removal of the Intelligence Community Inspector at least 30 days before their removal, according to the Senators' letter.

“According to public reports, Mr Atkinson already was placed on administrative leave, effectively removing him from his position prior to the completion of the statutorily required notice period,” the letter said.