Why DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz Should Be Fired

The decision not to dismiss Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, appointed in 2012 by President Obama, stands out as one of the few puzzling choices during President Trump’s otherwise impressive first days back in office. Despite Horowitz’s whitewashed reports, numerous cover-ups, and instances of outright misconduct, he managed to retain his position at the DOJ. Horowitz should have been terminated and also deserves to be held accountable for his actions.

Even if we set aside Horowitz’s many cover-ups and half-truths in his reports, which are detailed further below, the first point that must be addressed is his unwarranted political attack on President Trump. During a February 10, 2021 podcast with Harvard’s Jack Goldsmith and “journalist” Bob Woodward, Horowitz publicly criticized both President Trump and Trump’s decision to fire the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, Michael Atkinson.

Goldsmith asked Horowitz, “what happens when a president is elected precisely to break norms.” Horowitz responded, saying, “I agree with Bob and I agree with you. That was what happened here, it was norm-breaking…norms didn’t matter…I’m not sure even Bob could have written such a good fiction story.” Horowitz continued, telling the two men that Trump’s presidency “was a challenging time."

It was at this point that Horowitz shifted to a discussion of Trump’s firing of two Inspectors General—Michael Atkinson and Glenn Fine. According to Horowitz’s rewrite of history, both men “were fired for doing their jobs and not because they engaged in any misconduct.”

This last statement regarding Trump’s firing of Atkinson by Horowitz was particularly revealing. Horowitz’s remark was not only beyond the scope of his role as an inspector general but also blatantly inappropriate, serving as a clear indication of his political bias.

President Trump was entirely justified in firing Atkinson, who secretly altered the “whistleblower” form to facilitate the Ukraine impeachment hoax. Moreover, Atkinson also secretly coordinating with Rep. Adam Schiff in pushing the so-called whistleblower (really a tag team of Eric Ciaramella and Alexander Vindman) forward to Congress.

Even if one were to argue that Horowitz was speaking either privately or in his capacity as Chair of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency—a position he did not hold at the time he made the comments—he further compounded this overreach by sharing his baseless claims with Woodward, a man known for his manic anti-Trump partisanship. The mere act of engaging with Woodward severely damaged the perception of an inspector general’s neutrality, and this alone should have been grounds for termination.

Some argue that Trump’s decision not to fire Horowitz was a calculated move, part of some larger strategy. However, this interpretation complicates the situation unnecessarily. As Trump himself stated on Air Force One when asked why Horowitz was not dismissed, the reason was that Horowitz uncovered corruption involving James Comey. In other words, Trump remembered the “good parts” of Horowitz’s work—specifically, the significant FBI abuses that Horowitz revealed.

Indeed, many were initially impressed with Horowitz’s 2019 report, including us, who wrote favorably about it at the time. However, our perspective of Horowitz shifted years ago and this favorable framing of Horowitz is rightly outdated.

In the years since that report, we have gained a deeper understanding of what Horowitz omitted, misrepresented, or deliberately concealed. What appeared impressive in 2019 was, in fact, a classic limited hangout—a strategy intended to disclose just enough information to create an illusion of transparency while hiding the most damaging truths.

Horowitz’s omissions and distortions shielded some of the most corrupt individuals and institutions from accountability. Consider the following:

• Conveniently Timed Investigations: Horowitz quietly opened an investigation on January 12, 2017, just days before Trump’s inauguration. This new investigation coincided suspiciously with Comey launching the weaponized phase of the Russia collusion hoax and directly coincided with the date of the first renewal of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. On this same day, Washington Post “reporter” David Ignatius reported on Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s calls with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The vague parameters of Horowitz’s investigation were later used as a convenient excuse to withhold Russiagate-related information for three years, under the pretense of avoiding interference with Horowitz’s extended investigation.

• False Claims About Crossfire Hurricane: Horowitz discovered that Crossfire Hurricane had no valid predication, meaning that the FBI had no legal basis to initiate their investigation of the Trump Campaign, but falsely claimed otherwise to cover it up.

• Steele Dossier Revelations: Horowitz found out that the FBI had offered Christopher Steele $1 million to corroborate anything in the dossier, yet he failed to disclose both the offer and Steele’s inability to do so.

• Undisclosed Meetings: Horowitz personally met with Clinton lawyer and Russia collusion operative Michael Sussmann in March 2017 for reasons that still remain shrouded in mystery. He failed to disclose this meeting, even when questioned by Special Counsel Durham.

• Omitted Evidence: Horowitz learned that Peter Strzok lied to the DOJ but omitted this from his Crossfire Hurricane report.

• Withheld Critical Devices: Horowitz had possession of two FBI cellphones belonging to James Baker but concealed their existence from Durham. This action was particularly egregious as Durham was actively conducting a criminal leak investigation into Baker at the time.

• Suppressed Key Information: Inspector General Horowitz knew that Igor Danchenko, the source of the Steele dossier, was a suspected Russian spy but withheld this crucial information. He also failed to address the FBI's deliberate concealment of Danchenko's identity and existence, which served to obscure the fact that the dossier was fabricated and that Danchenko had provided false accounts of his role.

• Selective Investigations into FBI Leadership: Horowitz investigated FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe but chose to focus narrowly on McCabe’s media leaks. He failed to disclose McCabe’s initiation of an illegal espionage investigation into President Trump in May 2017 or McCabe’s order to re-engage fraudulent dossier author Christopher Steele.

• Whitewashing Political Bias: Horowitz provided cover for FBI Director James Comey, falsely claiming that Comey’s actions against Trump in 2016 and 2017 were not politically motivated, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

• Ignored Data Wiping: Horowitz conveniently “forgot” to mention that Mueller’s team wiped all their phones during their investigation.

The Need for Accountability

Given this record of protecting the agency he was tasked with overseeing, it is baffling that Horowitz remained in his position. His actions—and inactions—not only undermined the integrity of the Department of Justice but also shielded key players in one of the most significant political scandals in modern history. His failure to report the truth, his willingness to mislead the public, and his egregious overreach in offering political commentary all demonstrate a complete disregard for the responsibilities of his role.

Horowitz’s conduct warrants more than criticism—it demands accountability. Think about it this way: What are the chances that Horowitz, who has been an integral part of the DOJ for the last thirteen years, will bring the much-needed reforms, rectification, and rehabilitation to a deeply corrupt agency. Don’t forget that the DOJ played a key role in the J6 persecutions, the lawfare against Trump, and, of course, the coup that was the Russiagate hoax during Horowitz’s watch.

All of this raises a critical question: Where was Horowitz during Biden’s weaponization of the DOJ against Trump?

More broadly, Michael Horowitz was appointed to oversee the actions of the Department of Justice—a responsibility that inevitably prompts another question: Who has been, is, and will be watching the watchman?