In 2014, I wrote about the troubling tendency of organizations to either “feed a fever” by pouring resources into internal audit functions during crises—or “starve” them when times are calm, budgets are tight, or leaders find oversight inconvenient. The message was simple: weakening audit functions is short-sighted and ultimately undermines the very institutions those functions are designed to protect.

A decade later, the issue is back in the spotlight. This time, it’s not a local government audit body but federal inspectors general (IGs) who are facing allegations of being “starved.” According to recent reports, Congressional leaders are accusing the administration of cutting resources and blocking investigations that IGs see as critical to their mission.

As a former federal inspector general, I know firsthand the dangers of even the perception that oversight functions are being undermined. Whether these allegations are legitimate or not, the consequences are real: public confidence erodes, employees lose faith in accountability, and the very legitimacy of government institutions is called into question.

Oversight Is a Public Trust, Not a Political Tool

Audit and oversight functions—whether in the private sector or government—are not luxuries. They are safeguards designed to ensure transparency, accountability, and trust. For inspectors general, this mandate is especially critical. They are the watchdogs charged with rooting out waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in federal programs that affect millions of Americans.

When these watchdogs are seen as being defanged—whether through funding cuts, investigative roadblocks, or political interference—the result is predictable. Citizens begin to wonder: What are leaders trying to hide? This question, whether grounded in fact or perception, corrodes faith in government.

It is important to note that accusations of starving oversight functions are not new and certainly not unique to any single administration or political party. Over the years, IGs across the federal government have faced budget constraints, staffing shortfalls, or restrictions on their independence. The problem is systemic. And so is the risk.

The Cost of “Starving” Oversight

Starving an audit or oversight function has both immediate and long-term costs:

1. Reduced Capacity to Detect Problems and “Blow The Whistle”
   Fewer resources mean fewer audits, fewer investigations, and fewer opportunities to detect waste or fraud before it escalates. In government, this translates to billions of taxpayer dollars potentially being misspent without accountability.
2. Chilling Effect on Independence
   When oversight officials believe their funding or access is contingent on not “rocking the boat,” independence (or at least its perception) is compromised. No audit function—internal or governmental—can succeed if it fears reprisal for speaking truth to power.
3. Erosion of Public Confidence
   Perhaps the greatest cost is intangible. Oversight exists not only to hold organizations accountable but to assure stakeholders—citizens, employees, investors, regulators—that accountability is real. If oversight functions appear weakened, trust quickly evaporates.

Lessons from the Private Sector

Internal auditors in the corporate world know these dynamics all too well. Companies often starve their audit departments after a scandal fades, or when profitability takes precedence over governance. But history is littered with examples—Enron, WorldCom, and others—where cutting back on oversight created the perfect environment for disaster.

What happens in corporations is magnified in government. When oversight functions are underfunded or blocked, the “cost” is not borne by shareholders alone—it is borne by taxpayers and by citizens who depend on government services.

Perception Matters as Much as Reality

As I argued in 2014, oversight functions must not only be independent and effective—they must be perceived as such. In governance, perception is often reality.

If the public perceives that inspectors general are being starved of resources or blocked from pursuing critical inquiries, then even if oversight is technically functioning, its legitimacy is weakened. Restoring that trust is far harder than preserving it in the first place.

That is why leaders—whether in corporations or government—must be careful stewards of oversight. They must not only support audit functions in practice but visibly demonstrate that support. Anything less fuels suspicion.

A Call for Transparency

So where does this leave us today?

I spent 25 years in the public sector, and realize that government and oversight functions cannot be immune to the budget realities that their agencies face. If the federal government is downsizing key agencies, it is reasonable to expect that the statutory IG functions will also experience budget reductions. However, IG budget reductions should not be disproportionate. In the interest of transparency, the administration should respond to accusations that it is “starving” IG functions with the statistics that would refute them. If an agency’s budget is being reduced by 15% and the IG’s budget reduction is commensurate, then it is hard to agree that the IG is being starved.

If the administration is unable or unwilling to address the accusations, the IG’s themselves should disclose the facts. Afterall, it is their independence and credibility that is being called into question.

Funding decisions should be made with the understanding that oversight is an investment, not a cost. A well-resourced IG office often identifies savings that far exceed its budget. Starving oversight is not fiscal discipline; it is fiscal negligence.

The Stakes Could Not Be Higher

Policymakers and agency leaders should treat inspectors general not as adversaries but as allies in ensuring government operates with integrity. An IG’s job is not to embarrass, but to illuminate—helping leaders make better decisions, prevent waste, and strengthen public institutions.

Democracies rely on trust. When people lose faith that their government—or the corporations they depend on—are being held accountable, the social contract frays. Oversight is one of the critical tools we have to preserve that trust.

In 2014, I warned that starving internal audit functions left organizations blind to risk and vulnerable to scandal. In 2025, the same warning applies with even greater urgency to the federal government.

Feeding oversight builds trust. Starving it corrodes it. The choice for leaders—corporate or governmental—should be clear.