What happens when a whistleblower claims wrongdoing in the federal government?
Who investigates those allegations and who protects those federal employees?
The answer is an independent watchdog agency called the Office of Special Counsel.
Shortly after taking office, President Trump fired the head of that office — Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger. Since then, Dellinger has been locked in a legal fight with the administration. A fight that he gave up on Thursday.
Dellinger was appointed by former President Joe Biden and has led the Office of Special Counsel since March 2024. He sued Trump over the legality of his firing last month, because the law states that special counsels can only be removed by the president for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office."
One judge sided with Dellinger by declaring the firing unlawful and put him back on the job. Then, on Wednesday, an appeals court cleared the way for Trump to remove him. On Thursday, Dellinger dropped his lawsuit, effectively ending his tenure at the office.
The legal battle had played out as Dellinger was investigating the firings of probationary federal employees.
In an interview with All Things Considered host Juana Summers, Dellinger said it was "very hard" to drop the lawsuit.
"I would be before the board that could put these hundreds of thousands of probationary employees back on the job," he told NPR. "And so it was hard to start the suit. It was very hard to stop it. I'm glad I tried."
This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Interview highlights
Juana Summers: I want to start with this question: Why are you giving up this fight to regain your job now?
Hampton Dellinger: Two reasons. One, I recognize that the trio of judges who decided to sideline me are somewhat conservative, and in that sense, mirror our United States Supreme Court. So I do think the odds of me ultimately prevailing may have been long. And even more, it would have literally taken a long time. It could have been up to a year. And I've seen the damage that is being done to federal agencies on a day-by-day, even hour-by-hour, basis. And I didn't think I could — in any meaningful way — pick up the pieces a year from now, even if I prevailed.
Summers: I'm curious, just internally, what got you to that point of saying, "I'm going to step back, I'm not going to continue pushing this." Was there a moment, a conversation?
Dellinger: There was a judicial decision. And it was hard because when that came down two days ago, that morning, I had been able to get 6,000 newly hired federal employees back on the job. They had been unlawfully fired, in my estimation, based on the investigation I did. And I was ready to move forward and try and get all probationary employees put back on the job because of their unlawful firing. And that night, the court made clear that I was going to lose my job, at least temporarily, and I think a little bit [of time] was going to make a huge difference in terms of my ability to ever be effective again.
Summers: You've kind of started to get into this, but in the statement that you put out announcing your decision, you wrote that taking this all the way to the Supreme Court was a long shot. Is it just the politics of the court?
Dellinger: I don't know if they would see themselves as political, but their legal viewpoint is one that I disagree with. I recognize they are the final arbiters of the law. There is no question that my firing violated a law, a president has to have a very good reason to fire someone with the type of statutory protections I had. The only question is, is the law unconstitutional? And I think you have to have a view almost of the president as a king, to believe that he should be able to fire anyone he wants, whenever he wants. That's not what congresses believe, that's not what prior courts have believed, but I think this court would have likely [ruled] against me, and I feel like that's unfortunate.
Summers: I've been looking at some of the comments from conservative legal scholars and commentators, and they've made the case that this is an encroachment on the president's power to choose his agency heads. I'm talking about, the ruling to preserve your job — what do you make of those arguments?
Dellinger: Well, I'm not a legal scholar, I'm a lawyer. But I do know that every other branch of government has checks and balances. In the legislative branch, in Congress, you've got the House versus the Senate. In the judicial branch, you have federal and state courts. Higher court, the highest court — the Supreme Court — and lower courts. And so the idea that our framers, who had fought a war against a king, would have set up the executive branch with no independence, no protection for watchdogs like myself, I don't think is what our framers had in mind. But at the end of the day, I know the Supreme Court controls, and even when I disagree with a decision or a viewpoint, I respect it. I think that's what Americans do.
Summers: Now before your firing and during that brief period in which you were reinstated, you've challenged the administration's firings of probationary federal employees. What evidence did you find that those firings may have been illegal?
Dellinger: Well the evidence came from the agencies themselves. The president can reorganize, the executive branch can even downsize, but it has to be done according to regulations and rules. But if you're going to fire federal employees, it needs to be done on an individualized assessment. And agencies were sending out these mass firing notices, in some instances claiming it was for performance, but there had been no individualized assessment. I think it was not only unlawful, I think it was defamatory. And that's why I was so pleased that we were able to get 6,000 employees back on the job. And I think there's a legal basis for all of those terminated probationary employees to be put back on the job immediately. I hope agencies will do it voluntarily. All I have is my voice at this point. But I also think it's really important to understand that so many federal employees are military veterans. Over 600,000 out of the 2 million employees in the federal executive branch workforce are military veterans. And so when you disrespect federal employees, you're disrespecting veterans.
Summers: Are you concerned that your successor will run into roadblocks trying to investigate claims that are brought to the Office of Special Counsel or just not even try?
Dellinger: I am. Because it was so critical, I think, to the success of my office — not just when I was there, but going back 50 years when the office was first created — it was so vital that whistleblowers who may already have been mistreated by their agencies felt that they could go to a safe place outside their agencies, have someone with the experience of looking into claims and someone able to protect them. And the independence of my office was key. So now my successors, I fear forever more, are going to be wholly dependent on the good graces of the president. And I just don't think that can ever work in the same way it had before. And I think it has worked well before.
Summers: You end your statement with this line and I'm going to quote it: "While I've given up on continuing to serve as special counsel, I retain my unyielding belief in the rule of law in America and the promise of our indispensable nation. I trust that as long as we cherish these vital precepts, they will exist." In light of that line, are you feeling hopeful in this moment?
Dellinger: I am, and I'm not. Certainly, we've seen presidents push the limits of their authority before, but I've talked to many people who say they've never seen the types of things we're seeing now, including these mass terminations of so many hardworking federal employees. But the courts are still there. Congress has a voice, has the power of the purse, and I hope they will use it. And I've seen so many Americans care about what's going on. So as daunting as the present seems, I still have hope. I think we have to have hope for the future.
Copyright 2025 NPR
