Paul K. Martin

Former Inspector General, US Agency for International Development

Standing up for integrity

As Inspector General of USAID, Paul K. Martin’s job was “to prevent and detect fraud, and to promote efficiency and effectiveness in the programs and operations” of his Department. This position was created by Congress through the Inspector General Act in 1978; civilian IGs were installed in every cabinet department of the federal government, and were specifically designated as independent, nonpartisan, and not involved in policy making.

However, USAID was one of the first departments in Trump’s crosshairs: on January 20, 2025, Executive Order 14169, Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid, immediately halted disbursement of foreign assistance “in a manner that is not fully aligned with the foreign policy of the President of the United States.”

On February 7, 2025, Trump called for the dismantling of USAID, saying that the department was run by “radical lunatics,” and the firing of most of its employees began. On February 10, Martin wrote an advisory notice describing how the staff cuts had disrupted the distribution of humanitarian food aid and left $489 million in food aid stranded at ports and in transit, in danger of rotting. Another 500,000 metric tons of food sourced from American farmers was held up, and also in danger of spoiling. In other words, cuts made in the name of “efficiency” caused massive waste and endangered those who needed this food the most. Further, many US suppliers were not paid for the food because USAID funds were frozen; some suppliers then had to lay off workers. On February 11, Martin was fired; he was not given a reason. 

The key element of an Inspector General’s job is independence. In an interview, Martin was asked whether he thought when he presented his advisory memo that it might get him fired. He answered, “Yes.” The interviewer asked, “And you did it anyway?” Martin responded: “Yes, because that’s the kind of oversight that we do.” Discussing the future, he said, “I think the concept of independent, aggressive oversight via in-house Inspectors general is at a tipping point. I think this should be an alarm to all Americans, but in particular Congress. And Congress is the one, if they don’t want to see IGs’ authority and value dissipate, they need to wake up.”

Bio

Paul K. Martin has extraordinary experience as an Inspector General, having served in the position at NASA for 14 years (confirmed by Senate in 2009) before moving to USAID in 2023 (confirmed by the Senate). At USAID, he monitored $35 billion allotted to humanitarian and development assistance programs in more than 100 countries, including $50 billion in non-military assistance provided to Ukraine since Russia’s invasion in 2022 and $1 billion in humanitarian assistance provided to Gaza/West Bank after the October 7, 2023, terrorist attack by Hamas. Mr. Martin also served for five years as Vice Chair of the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee established during the COVID-19 pandemic to support independent oversight of the $5 trillion in government pandemic relief spending. During his distinguished career as a nonpartisan watchdog, he has saved taxpayers many millions of dollars in waste or fraud, and has maintained the integrity of the departments he has worked for.

Earlier in his 40-year Federal career, Mr. Martin served as Deputy Inspector General at the Department of Justice and Deputy Staff Director at the United States Sentencing Commission. He has a law degree from the Georgetown University Law Center and a Journalism degree from the Pennsylvania State University.

Since he was fired, Martin has spoken out for the importance of independent, nonpartisan watchdogs as a crucial piece of good government. As he noted in a Wall Street Journal interview, “Congress created the IGs and relied on them for past 45 years ... to conduct aggressive oversight of any of the Administration’s programs.”

He defined the mission of the IGs: “Our whole goal was to try to improve the proper functioning of government. It’s not to tear down the agency, it’s not to get a one-day headline about some splashy Office of the Inspector General report. It’s to provide the accountability and the transparency so folks know how their money is being spent.” 

He also reminds us that this independence has not been challenged until the Trump administration: “I have worked over more than six presidents, and I have never had a concern that issuing an audit or an investigation even with what would be perceived as negative findings could impact my employment.” Martin worries that independence lost, might never be regained. And he is concerned for the future: “I'm afraid that we've moved on to… an era in which every administration will come in and assume that they're going to replace all the inspector generals with people of their choice, that the secretary of treasury or the attorney general will get to pick his or her inspector general. And that will turn the independent IG system on its head.” He adds, the Trump administration’s “message to Inspector Generals is that oversight of these programs, particularly if there are negative findings, is not welcome anymore.”

LAWSUITS

The dismantling of USAID has been challenged in court by a series of lawsuits.

AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. U.S. Department of State, and Global Health Council v. Trump. 

These two suits seek payment that was already authorized and contracted for to suppliers and contractors despite the administration’s freeze on USAID’s funds. The government has repeatedly delayed, missing deadlines for payments. On May 13, Judge Amir H. Ali of the US District Court in Washington, DC, rejected the government’s request to reverse part of an earlier court order requiring payment for past work not just to plaintiffs but to nonplaintiffs, too. He found that the request lacked supporting evidence and would not aid the appeals court. Emphasizing that the case was more than a simple contract dispute, he said it challenged the government’s “blanket directives to suspend congressionally appropriated foreign aid.” The government has appealed to the Court of Appeals.

American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump.

This case, filed February 18 by the USAID employees’ union, challenges the constitutionality of the Trump administration's decision to place thousands of USAID staff on administrative leave, with more terminations reportedly planned. In a May 12 filing, the government argued that this is an employee dispute that should proceed through designated administrative processes, not in district court. Judge Carl J. Nichols of the US District Court in Washington, DC, is weighing whether to dismiss the case or grant summary judgment.

Personal Services Contractor Association v. Trump. 

This case was filed February 13 by USAID contractors arguing that their termination was unconstitutional. Judge Carl Nichols of the US District Court in Washington, DC, denied the request for a temporary restraining order (TRO), citing lack of evidence of irreparable harm, and denied a further request for a TRO to halt destruction of evidence. In May, the government argued that the court lacks jurisdiction and is a contract dispute; the PSCA rebutted by requesting a further TRO. The judge could call a hearing or rule on the motion.

J. Does 1-26 v. Musk.

This case was filed on February by a group of anonymous USAID workers against Elon Musk and DOGE, arguing that they decimated USAID without having the authority to do so. On March 18, Theodore Chuang of the US District Court in Maryland ruled that DOGE’s actions to shutter USAID were “likely unconstitutional”; the ruling barred DOGE and Musk from taking further actions. However, it allowed officials with the proper authority to continue the dismantling: Secretary of State and Acting USAID Director Marco Rubio.

Musk and DOGE appealed; the appellate court paused Chuang’s ruling, saying that Musk’s role was “unconventional” but not clearly unconstitutional. In May, Musk and DOGE filed a motion to dismiss the case. The government’s appeals brief is due on June 13; plaintiffs have until July 14 to respond. Meanwhile, the district court continues to weigh motions, including on dismissal.