A U.S. District Judge in Washington, D.C., Amy Berman Jackson, has harshly criticized the Trump administration’s attempt to remove Hampton Dellinger from his position as head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). The judge compared the administration’s actions to a bull causing chaos in a china shop.
In her order issued on Wednesday, February 12, 2025, Judge Jackson wrote, “What A Mess!” referring to the aftermath of the attempted termination. In a striking footnote, Jackson remarked, “Any disruption to the work of the agency was occasioned by the White House. It’s as if the bull in the china shop looked back over his shoulder and said, ‘What a mess!'”
Dellinger, confirmed by the Senate in February 2024 to lead the independent agency responsible for enforcing whistleblower protections and political corruption laws, received a sudden termination email last week from Sergio Gor, assistant to the president and director of the presidential personnel office. The termination notice was utterly unexpected and did not explain the dismissal.
Judge Jackson highlighted in her order that under federal law, the head of the OSC can only be dismissed for three reasons: “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” The White House did not mention any of these reasons in Dellinger’s termination notice. Instead, the administration contended that the public interest would be “better served by a Special Counsel who holds the President’s confidence” – an explanation which Jackson rejected as legally inadequate.
Despite a court-ordered administrative stay, the Justice Department tried to replace Dellinger with Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins (who also heads the Ethics Office). When the DOJ appealed Judge Jackson’s order, calling it an “extraordinary intrusion” on presidential authority, the DC Circuit Court dismissed the appeal, citing both a lack of jurisdiction and the government’s failure to demonstrate any urgent need for intervention.
While serving as the OSC head, Dellinger has shown nonpartisan oversight. Before to his attempted removal, he found that former Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro and senior Biden White House official Neera Tanden had breached the Hatch Act, illustrating the office’s commitment to investigating officials of any political affiliation.
The OSC’s responsibilities go beyond political oversight. It investigates claims of reprisal from whistleblowers, takes disciplinary action against employees who penalize whistleblowers and offers a safe way for federal employees to expose government misconduct. The office has saved taxpayers billions of dollars through its investigations into waste, fraud, and abuse.
Judge Jackson rejected the administration’s argument that Dellinger’s ongoing service would disrupt the agency’s operations, noting a lack of factual evidence to support this claim. She emphasized that Dellinger had carried out his duties over the past year without issues. According to Jackson, the trustworthy potential source of disruption would be his sudden removal, which could destabilize current administrative processes and investigations.
The Trump administration’s attempted removal of Dellinger follows a trend of contentious dismissals, including those of Democratic members of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the National Labor Relations Board. These actions have faced legal scrutiny as potential breaches of federal regulations designed to safeguard the independence of government oversight agencies.
Jackson dismissed the administration’s argument that Dellinger could be reinstated to his position if he won his lawsuit. She stressed that without a lawfully appointed special counsel leader, it would be impossible to ensure that critical aspects of the role, including protecting sensitive information and ongoing investigations, are being carried out.
The National Whistleblower Center has rallied behind Dellinger, encouraging supporters to contact their representatives and senators about the attempted termination. The organization emphasized that independence is crucial for a Special Counsel to perform their duties effectively.
A preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for February 26 will decide whether Dellinger remains in his position beyond the temporary restraining order. The outcome of the case could have considerable implications for the constitutional balance between presidential authority and congressional power to protect the independence of agency heads through statutory protections. Legal experts note that the decision could set an important precedent regarding executive power in removing heads of independent agencies.