It seems Senator Grassley is concerned. Too little, too late and you are dreaming if you think any Trumplican in Congress is going to do anything. They gave up any chance of constitutionally required oversight on January 31, 2020 when they voted to not call witnesses.
Excerpts from his letter to Trump*
The rest is here
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/site...te%20IG%29.pdf
Dear President Trump:
On Friday, May 15, you provided notice to Congress of your intent to remove the State Department Inspector General (State IG) Steve Linick. This follows the recent removal of the Intelligence Community Inspector General (IC IG) Michael Atkinson, which generated several letters of concern from the Senate, including a bipartisan letter that I drafted with several of my colleagues.
We still have received no official response. As you know, Congress created inspectors general to combat waste, fraud, and abuse, and to be independent watchdogs holding federal agencies accountable to the taxpayer. In light of their important and unique role, they report to both the President and Congress. To guard them from unwarranted political attacks from all sides, including from officials that they are duty bound to critique, Congress provided IGs with some additional protections. One of those is the requirement that the President provide notice and explanation to Congress 30 days before the removal of an IG.
As mentioned in previous letters, Congress’s intent is clear that an expression of lost confidence, without further explanation, is not sufficient to fulfill the requirements of the IG Reform Act.
This is in large part because Congress intended that inspectors general only be removed when there is clear evidence of unfitness, wrongdoing, or failure to perform the duties of the office.
IGs are intended to be equal opportunity investigators and are designed to combat waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct without regard to political affiliation. They are the ultimate swamp drainers. Many IGs span multiple administrations and work in a nonpartisan manner to provide objective oversight of the Federal Government. Removal of IGs without explanation could create a chilling effect in the oversight community, and risks decreasing the quantity, quality, fidelity, and veracity of their reports.
These concerns are only amplified when an acting IG is appointed from the agency that the IG oversees, a situation that creates obvious conflicts of interest. And particularly when, as is alleged here (and in the case of the new acting Inspector General for the Department of Transportation), the newly appointed acting IG leadership are political appointees at the agency, who reportedly plan to keep their political appointments while serving as head of an inspector general office. If this is true, it means that while still reporting to the agency secretary, they will have oversight of and access to all confidential inspector general information, including whistleblower complaints and identities. As you work toward filling IG roles, it is absolutely imperative than any acting leadership do not create obvious conflicts that unduly threaten the statutorily required independence of inspectors general.