Profiles in Courage is a new series honoring the extraordinary women and men who have transformed American institutions through principled public service. At a time when trust in government is fragile, these stories offer a powerful reminder of what ethical leadership looks like—from those who litigate for civil rights and resign on principle, to those who break military barriers and defend democracy on the front lines.

This month, we spotlight women in the Department of Justice, federal agencies and the military whose careers have been defined by integrity, resilience and reform. Their quiet heroism—often at personal cost—reaffirms the enduring role of public servants who choose justice over self-interest. Through their stories, Ms. pays tribute to a tradition of service that safeguards democracy and inspires the next generation to lead with courage.

On Jan. 24, 2025, President Donald Trump dismissed inspectors general (IGs) from 17 key federal agencies in an unprecedented move that has raised serious questions about government accountability. These IGs serve as independent watchdogs tasked with overseeing federal operations, ensuring transparency, and protecting taxpayer dollars from fraud, waste and mismanagement.

What’s an Inspector General?

Origins and Independence

Inspectors general were established under the Inspector General Act of 1978, signed into law during President Jimmy Carter’s administration. The IGs are meant to operate independently, conducting audits and investigations that help prevent corruption and ensure efficient government operations.

Function and Authority

IGs investigate potential violations of ethics and conflict-of-interest laws.

Since the post-9/11 amendments to the act (via the Homeland Security Act of 2002), most presidentially appointed IG special agents have been granted full law enforcement authority. Criminal investigators may make warrantless arrests, execute search warrants, and carry firearms in federal IG offices. While many IGs must secure temporary deputation from the Department of Justice for these powers, some—at the Departments of Agriculture, Defense and the Treasury—have permanent statutory authority.

The Dismissals

Trump’s Jan. 24 purge of IGs from 17 federal agencies, announced with little explanation, has been widely criticized as undermining a vital mechanism for oversight within the federal government. Critics argue that the IGs’ removal weakens a critical safeguard against waste, fraud and abuse.

The Legal Challenge

Eight of the dismissed IGs have filed a lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C., arguing that their terminations were unlawful. Key points in their complaint include:

• Violation of federal law: The lawsuit contends that the firings breached clear statutory protections. A law passed in 2022 requires that before an IG is removed, the White House must provide Congress with a 30-day notification and substantive reasons for the dismissal.
• Undermining oversight: The plaintiffs assert that the abrupt dismissals, carried out via brief emails and without adequate explanation, undermine the nonpartisan oversight role of IGs. They argue that such actions violate federal law and jeopardize the public’s ability to ensure government agencies operate effectively and without corruption.
• Relief sought: The affected IGs are seeking a court order to void their dismissals. They request that they remain the duly appointed IGs of their respective agencies until a lawful removal process is followed. They also seek an injunction to prevent agency leaders from interfering with the IGs’ duties.

From IG to Plaintiff

Several of the IGs provided detailed accounts of their experiences:

Phyllis K. Fong (Department of Agriculture)

A 22-year veteran nominated by President George W. Bush, Fong continued working after being dismissed—arguing that her termination was ineffective without the required legal procedures. Her removal, enforced by deactivation of her federal badge and seizure of her equipment, underscored the abrupt nature of the purge.

Robert P. Storch (Department of Defense)

Storch emphasized that while presidential administrations change, the role of IGs as nonpartisan watchdogs remains essential. He warned that conflicts of interest can undermine decision-making processes without proper oversight.

Sandra D. Bruce (Department of Education)

Bruce, who began her career as a secretary and rose to become the second Black woman confirmed as an IG, was initially removed but later informed that she would continue as acting IG after a brief reversal. Her case highlights the confusion and inconsistency surrounding the dismissals.

Christi A. Grimm (Department of Health and Human Services)

Grimm detailed how the work of IGs—ranging from uncovering abuse in nursing homes to overseeing complex healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid—is crucial for protecting vulnerable Americans. She cautioned that eliminating such oversight would harm the integrity of these programs.

Larry D. Turner (Department of Labor)

A retired Army lieutenant colonel who served as the Labor IG, Turner expressed frustration over the one-line dismissal notice, asserting that decades of dedicated service were abruptly ended without just cause.

Cardell K. Richardson (Department of State)

Richardson, a retired Air Force colonel, declared his intention to continue serving despite his termination, citing the legal requirement for a 30-day notice before an IG can be lawfully removed.

Michael J. Missal (Department of Veterans Affairs)

Missal, who had overseen a large team since 2016, described the dismissals as a clear violation of the law. He noted that the VA, one of the largest federal departments, stands to lose a critical layer of oversight.

Hannibal “Mike” Ware (Small Business Administration)

Ware, who was among Trump’s nominees in a previous term, stressed the nonpartisan nature of IGs and their role in saving taxpayers billions of dollars annually. He expressed concern that the dismissals set a dangerous precedent that could permanently impair the IG system’s independence.

Reactions and Broader Implications

The Government Accountability Project and other watchdog groups have strongly condemned the dismissals, calling the move a “blatant assault on the guardrails of accountability within the executive branch.” They warn that firing independent watchdogs not only increases the risk of fraud and abuse but also sends a chilling message to the civil service.

What’s Next?

The controversy surrounding these actions raises fundamental questions about the balance of power in Washington. With IGs serving as critical overseers of government operations, their removal could have far-reaching consequences for transparency, accountability and the public’s trust in federal institutions. 

In light of these developments, the stakes could not be higher. As the removal of IGs continues to stir debate, it serves as a stark reminder of the fragile equilibrium between oversight and executive power. Moving forward, ensuring robust mechanisms for accountability is essential—preserving transparency and restoring the public’s faith in the institutions designed to serve them.