Affected inspectors general were sent emails from the director of presidential personnel overnight on Friday telling them that “due to changing priorities, your position as inspector general… is terminated, effective immediately”, according to CBS News, the BBC’s US partner.

The group of dismissed watchdogs includes the inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services, and the inspector general of the Small Business Administration, CBS said.

There were competing lists of fired watchdogs circulating, according to the New York Times. Watchdogs at the departments of agriculture, commerce, defence, education, housing and urban development, interior, labor, transportation and veterans affairs, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency were all reportedly considered.

It is unclear whom the Trump administration might pick to fill the newly vacant positions.

Congress created inspectors general in the wake of the Watergate scandal, as part of a wave of reforms intended to curb corruption, waste and fraud. The independent watchdogs – who work within federal agencies but are not controlled by the head of those agencies – are meant to serve as a guard against mismanagement and abuse of power.

Though they are presidential appointees, they are expected to be nonpartisan.

The firings may be in breach of a law that requires the White House to give Congress 30-day notice and case-specific information before dismissing a federal inspector general.

Hannibal Ware, the inspector general of the Small Business Administration and head of a council of the watchdog across agencies sent a letter to Sergio Gor, the head of the White House Office of Presidential Personnel suggesting the dismissals were invalid.

“I recommend that you reach out to White House your intended course of action,” Ware wrote. “At this point, we do not believe the actions taken are legally sufficient to dismiss presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed inspectors general.”

In a separate statement released on Saturday afternoon, Ware wrote that dismissals “inconsistent with the law” were a grave threat to to the independence of inspectors general.

“IGs [inspectors general] are not immune from removal,” he wrote. “However, the law must be followed to protect independent government oversight for America.”

Democrats were quick to criticise the president for the move.

Schumer said the move was a “preview of the lawless approach” Trump and his administration were taking.

Gerry Connolly, a Virginia Democrat and ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, called the firings a “Friday night coup” and an “attack on transparency and accountability”.

He and 20 other Democratic members of congress wrote a letter directly to President Trump which expressed “grave concern” for the dismissals and urged him to reconsider.

“Your actions violate the law, attack our democracy, and undermine the safety of the American people,” the representatives wrote, a group that included Jamie Raskin of Maryland, Zoe Lofgren of California, and Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut.

Some Republican lawmakers, including Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Senator Susan Collins of Maine also expressed concern over the purge.

“I don’t understand why one would fire individuals whose mission it is to root out waste, fraud and abuse,” Collins said at the Capitol on Saturday. “I don’t understand it.”

[BBC]

The case has sparked a debate about attitudes toward marital consent and women’s rights in France. Lilia Mhissen, H.W.’s lawyer, said the decision dismantled the outdated concept of “marital duty” and called for French courts to align with modern views on consent and equality.

Women’s rights groups supporting H.W. said French judges continue to impose an “archaic vision of marriage,” which perpetuates harmful stereotypes.

H.W., who lives in Le Chesnay near Paris, married her husband, JC, in 1984. They had four children, including a daughter with a disability who required constant care, a responsibility H.W. took on.  Their marital relations deteriorated after the birth of their first child and by 1992, H.W. began experiencing health problems. In 2002, her husband started physically and verbally abusing her. Two years later, she stopped having sex with him and petitioned for divorce in 2012.

The woman did not dispute the divorce, which she had also requested, but objected to the grounds on which it was granted.

In 2019, an appeals court in Versailles rejected her complaints and ruled in favour of her husband. The Court of Cassation, France’s highest court, later dismissed her appeal without explanation. She then brought her case to the ECHR in 2021.

The ECHR ruled that governments should only intervene in matters like sexuality for very serious reasons. It stated that the idea of “marital duties” in French law ignored the importance of consent in sexual relations.

The court emphasised that agreeing to marry does not mean agreeing to have sex in the future. Suggesting otherwise, the ruling said, would effectively deny that marital rape is a serious crime.

The ruling comes amid growing attention to consent in France, following the high-profile trial of Dominique Pélicot, who drugged his wife and invited men to rape her. Pélicot and the 50 men involved were convicted last month, and the case raised concerns about how French law addresses consent.

Feminist groups argue that the ECHR decision reinforces the need to update French laws and cultural attitudes.

A recent report by French MPs has recommended including the concept of non-consent in the legal definition of rape, stating that consent must be freely given and can be withdrawn at any time.

[BBC]