Katelyn Mueller
The Whistleblower Protection Act
Politicians have a lot of responsibility and power. With all of this comes inevitable opportunities to abuse this power. However, the United States recognizes that no one, no matter how powerful, is above the law. This is where the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 comes into play. It is vital to understand and acknowledge this vital piece of legislation, especially given its current relevance today. This blog post explores the history of this act, the use of it in this current presidential administration, its involvement with congress, and its meanings and implications. Overall, the Whistleblower act is fascinating and essential for keeping accountability within the federal government.
To start, the Whistleblower Protection Act, established in 1989, is designed to protect federal whistleblowers who report suspected activity that violates the constitution, the law, established workplace rules, or that is an abuse of power. The act serves to protect these people from retaliatory measures by their employers such as termination or demoting, harassment or threats, and even more subtle types of retaliation that would overall discourage someone from coming forward, according to the US Department of Labor. The act is enacted whenever someone feels as if they have been retaliated against for any such report. In the past, cases involving the Whistleblower act have made it all the way up to the Supreme Court. In both 2006 and 2015, the Whistleblower Protection Act was supported by the court. Historically, the Government Accountability Project has supported people going to court for their rights as whistleblowers. In 2012, President Obama also expanded on the act to include protections for employees of the Intelligence Community, who had access to classified information. This version of the act is the most updated and continues to be applicable today. However, the use of this act is far from historic. In our deeply partisan government, both parties are intensely suspicious of the other, with accusations of treason and abuse of power coming from both sides of the party lines, whether they are directed at congressional democrats seeking impeachment proceedings against Trump or Republicans dismissing the democrats’ investigations of the president’s administration as a witch hunt.
Most recently, the Whistleblower Protection Act comes to mind when thinking of the latest scandal involving Trump. Essentially, an anonymous whistleblower filed complaints about him, involving an interaction with a Urkrainian official, urging him to investigate the Bidens, specifically Joe Biden’s son. It has also been alleged that the interaction involved some sort of Quid Pro Quo in order to make the investigation take place, though so far the details of this arrangement have not been specified. In regards to the specifics of the whistleblower’s complaint, Congress and the media have been given very limited information. According to the Washington Post, the White House has been trying to set up legal obstacles to prevent Joseph Maguire, the Director of National Intelligence, from sharing the complaint with Congress. In an attempt to get access to the whistleblower’s complaints, House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff has subpoenaed Maguire and is even willing to sue over the issue, according to the Washington Post. One theory is that the political significance of this is that an investigation into the Bidens could hurt Joe Biden’s chances (see table below) of beating Trump in the 2020 presidential election, especially because he is the leader in the polls. Congress’ relationship to the situation is complicated, given the limited amount of information they have about the situation. The Department of Justice’s policy states that a president can’t be indicted, so a response to the situation is Congress’ responsibility. This includes the possibility of impeachment proceedings. Impeachment proceedings happen in response to “high crimes and misdemeanors”, according to Congress, but it is up to their discretion to identify any of Trump’s actions as such. Similar to a variety of guidelines for Congress, it is very elastic and the outcome is inevitably going to be affected by partisan feelings about the president. Overall however, Trump’s history of controversy hasn’t harmed him in terms of repercussions, so it unlikely Congress’ response to this will be too significant. Additionally, the Trump team will have little access to the Whistleblower themself, due specifically to the protections put in place by the Act. (Via RealClearPolitics)
When researching this latest scandal and learning about the Whistleblower Protection Act, one thing that came to mind was the discussion of constitutions both in class and in assigned readings. Put into place to define how decisions will be made as well as which types of decisions can be made, constitutions seem vital to this situation. “Little c” constitutions within both Congress, National Intelligence, and the Department of Justice all seem to be acting on each other in ways that are making transparency difficult. The Department of Justice stops the president from being indicted, while the National Intelligence Director’s hands are tied about releasing the information regarding the complaint because of his own constitution he must follow. Meanwhile, Congress, wanting to be sure the president is acting within the rules of the US constitution has made it a priority to get the information they need to fully understand and investigate the situation. Another thought that came to mind was the point made in the myth about Odysseus, discussed by Michael Munger on Econtalk. In the story, Odysseus tells the members of his crew to tie him to the mast of his ship so he can hear the siren song without steering the ship into chaos, and not to untie him no matter how much he protests later on. The agreement to have a whistleblower protection act in order to stop them from doing something wrong later on is similar to this. Politicians and federal employees agree to this so they have protocol for future incidents. Overall, the latest scandal involving Trump brings up thoughts about the importance of “little c” constitutions and measures used to insure accountability in government. Discovering and researching the Whistleblower Protection Act was fascinating and eye-opening in terms of how the federal government plans ahead for potential allegations such as this latest one. Throughout the 20th and 21st century, it has protected those who speak out against suspected wrongdoing by those in power, solidifying that no one within this great nation is above the law.
References “2020 - Latest 2020 General Election Polls.” RealClearPolitics, 18 Sept. 2019, www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/. Blake, Aaron. “9 Questions about the Trump Whistleblower Complaint, Answered.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 20 Sept. 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/20/questions-about-trump-whistleblower-answered/. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/image/ppd-19.pdf “Michael Munger on Choosing in Groups.” Econlib, 23 Feb. 2015, www.econtalk.org/michael-munger-on-choosing-in-groups/. “Whistleblower Protection Act: An Overview.” Findlaw, employment.findlaw.com/whistleblowers/whistleblower-protection-act-an-overview.html. “Whistleblower Protection Case Reaches US Supreme Court.” Courage Foundation, 7 Nov. 2014, couragefound.org/2014/11/whistleblower-protection-case-reaches-us-supreme-court/. Zapotosky, Matt, et al. “Trump Pressed Ukrainian Leader to Investigate Biden's Son, According to People Familiar with the Matter.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 20 Sept. 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-pressed-ukrainian-leader-to-investigate-biden s-son-according-to-people-familiar-with-the-matter/2019/09/20/7fa39b20-dbdc-11e9-bfb1-84988 7369476_story.html.
Politicians have a lot of responsibility and power. With all of this comes inevitable opportunities to abuse this power. However, the United States recognizes that no one, no matter how powerful, is above the law. This is where the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 comes into play. It is vital to understand and acknowledge this vital piece of legislation, especially given its current relevance today. This blog post explores the history of this act, the use of it in this current presidential administration, its involvement with congress, and its meanings and implications. Overall, the Whistleblower act is fascinating and essential for keeping accountability within the federal government.
To start, the Whistleblower Protection Act, established in 1989, is designed to protect federal whistleblowers who report suspected activity that violates the constitution, the law, established workplace rules, or that is an abuse of power. The act serves to protect these people from retaliatory measures by their employers such as termination or demoting, harassment or threats, and even more subtle types of retaliation that would overall discourage someone from coming forward, according to the US Department of Labor. The act is enacted whenever someone feels as if they have been retaliated against for any such report. In the past, cases involving the Whistleblower act have made it all the way up to the Supreme Court. In both 2006 and 2015, the Whistleblower Protection Act was supported by the court. Historically, the Government Accountability Project has supported people going to court for their rights as whistleblowers. In 2012, President Obama also expanded on the act to include protections for employees of the Intelligence Community, who had access to classified information. This version of the act is the most updated and continues to be applicable today. However, the use of this act is far from historic. In our deeply partisan government, both parties are intensely suspicious of the other, with accusations of treason and abuse of power coming from both sides of the party lines, whether they are directed at congressional democrats seeking impeachment proceedings against Trump or Republicans dismissing the democrats’ investigations of the president’s administration as a witch hunt.
Most recently, the Whistleblower Protection Act comes to mind when thinking of the latest scandal involving Trump. Essentially, an anonymous whistleblower filed complaints about him, involving an interaction with a Urkrainian official, urging him to investigate the Bidens, specifically Joe Biden’s son. It has also been alleged that the interaction involved some sort of Quid Pro Quo in order to make the investigation take place, though so far the details of this arrangement have not been specified. In regards to the specifics of the whistleblower’s complaint, Congress and the media have been given very limited information. According to the Washington Post, the White House has been trying to set up legal obstacles to prevent Joseph Maguire, the Director of National Intelligence, from sharing the complaint with Congress. In an attempt to get access to the whistleblower’s complaints, House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff has subpoenaed Maguire and is even willing to sue over the issue, according to the Washington Post. One theory is that the political significance of this is that an investigation into the Bidens could hurt Joe Biden’s chances (see table below) of beating Trump in the 2020 presidential election, especially because he is the leader in the polls. Congress’ relationship to the situation is complicated, given the limited amount of information they have about the situation. The Department of Justice’s policy states that a president can’t be indicted, so a response to the situation is Congress’ responsibility. This includes the possibility of impeachment proceedings. Impeachment proceedings happen in response to “high crimes and misdemeanors”, according to Congress, but it is up to their discretion to identify any of Trump’s actions as such. Similar to a variety of guidelines for Congress, it is very elastic and the outcome is inevitably going to be affected by partisan feelings about the president. Overall however, Trump’s history of controversy hasn’t harmed him in terms of repercussions, so it unlikely Congress’ response to this will be too significant. Additionally, the Trump team will have little access to the Whistleblower themself, due specifically to the protections put in place by the Act. (Via RealClearPolitics)
When researching this latest scandal and learning about the Whistleblower Protection Act, one thing that came to mind was the discussion of constitutions both in class and in assigned readings. Put into place to define how decisions will be made as well as which types of decisions can be made, constitutions seem vital to this situation. “Little c” constitutions within both Congress, National Intelligence, and the Department of Justice all seem to be acting on each other in ways that are making transparency difficult. The Department of Justice stops the president from being indicted, while the National Intelligence Director’s hands are tied about releasing the information regarding the complaint because of his own constitution he must follow. Meanwhile, Congress, wanting to be sure the president is acting within the rules of the US constitution has made it a priority to get the information they need to fully understand and investigate the situation. Another thought that came to mind was the point made in the myth about Odysseus, discussed by Michael Munger on Econtalk. In the story, Odysseus tells the members of his crew to tie him to the mast of his ship so he can hear the siren song without steering the ship into chaos, and not to untie him no matter how much he protests later on. The agreement to have a whistleblower protection act in order to stop them from doing something wrong later on is similar to this. Politicians and federal employees agree to this so they have protocol for future incidents. Overall, the latest scandal involving Trump brings up thoughts about the importance of “little c” constitutions and measures used to insure accountability in government. Discovering and researching the Whistleblower Protection Act was fascinating and eye-opening in terms of how the federal government plans ahead for potential allegations such as this latest one. Throughout the 20th and 21st century, it has protected those who speak out against suspected wrongdoing by those in power, solidifying that no one within this great nation is above the law.
References “2020 - Latest 2020 General Election Polls.” RealClearPolitics, 18 Sept. 2019, www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/. Blake, Aaron. “9 Questions about the Trump Whistleblower Complaint, Answered.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 20 Sept. 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/20/questions-about-trump-whistleblower-answered/. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/image/ppd-19.pdf “Michael Munger on Choosing in Groups.” Econlib, 23 Feb. 2015, www.econtalk.org/michael-munger-on-choosing-in-groups/. “Whistleblower Protection Act: An Overview.” Findlaw, employment.findlaw.com/whistleblowers/whistleblower-protection-act-an-overview.html. “Whistleblower Protection Case Reaches US Supreme Court.” Courage Foundation, 7 Nov. 2014, couragefound.org/2014/11/whistleblower-protection-case-reaches-us-supreme-court/. Zapotosky, Matt, et al. “Trump Pressed Ukrainian Leader to Investigate Biden's Son, According to People Familiar with the Matter.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 20 Sept. 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-pressed-ukrainian-leader-to-investigate-biden s-son-according-to-people-familiar-with-the-matter/2019/09/20/7fa39b20-dbdc-11e9-bfb1-84988 7369476_story.html.
This was a great post because of the relevances to today and how it is still a developing story. Before this article, the extent of my whistleblower knowledge was just looking at Twitter posts, but now I understand fully what is going on and am excited to see how it will turn out. Well done!
ReplyDeleteThis blog ties into current legislative politics very well. I had no knowledge about the whistle blower protection act. That is very interesting. You bring up little "c" constitutions, what do you think should be amended or redefined in the constitution that regards the protection of whistleblowers? Very cool article !
ReplyDeleteI found this blog post incredibly interesting, especially considering the actions that took place in the last 48 hours. The whistle blower protection act is very interesting and it is something I am going to look more into. More specifically on how it can connect with Snowden. Overall, I thought your post was very informative and taught me some new facts in regards to the now current Impeachment scenario.
ReplyDelete