In the midst of the impeachment inquiry, many Trump supporters and the president himself have pushed for the unmasking of the whistleblower. This poses the question of whether it would be considered a crime if the president were to expose the identity of the whistleblower to the public. Several experts weigh in on the issue, agreeing that while “outing” the whistleblower would not be a crime, there are potential consequences if revealing the identity resulted in danger for the whistleblower or their family. Robert Litt, the former general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence under President Barack Obama, stated that if Trump revealed the name, “he's probably as protected as anyone is," whether he says it or tweets it. They declared that if Trump, a news outlet, a member of Congress, or even a normal citizen revealed the whistleblower, “no criminal law would be violated”. Federal law does not protect the identity of the whistleblower as “Congress has never provided that protection”.
In theory, however, exposing the identity could lead to retaliation against the whistleblower and their family so consequences do exist if a person chose to publicize the name. The person could be at risk of a civil lawsuit, and if they are a member of Congress, they could be removed from committees. As we have learned, workplace retaliation is in fact a federal crime, so while the action of outing a whistleblower is legal, there are many ramifications to this action that could be illegal. McLaughlin, the former acting director of the CIA, explained that there is a “longstanding deference to the protection of whistleblowers who risk their jobs to expose corruption, waste and abuse that has largely prevented federal government officials from naming them”, but now under the Trump administration, there are concerns that the president may ignore this history. Precedent such as this can be ignored, but this would create a new precedent that may discourage future whistleblowers from stepping up. The law was made to protect their interests from possible vengeance. Whistleblower protections in this case stem from the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998. This act bans retaliation and prevents the inspector general from revealing the whistleblower's name, however it does nothing to prevent anyone else from identifying the whistleblower. This brings attention to the gaps within whistleblower protection laws, and the threat is poses to protecting their rights and safety.
As we study civil liberties and rights, we discover more holes like those in the whistleblower protections. These gaps have significant consequences and may even contribute to silencing people by allowing others to potentially threaten to their safety if they speak out.
- Is it legal (for anyone) to reveal the identity of a whistleblower?
- Explain the protections included in the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998.
- What are the potential consequences of outing a whistleblower, and how could precedent be changed if the president were to reveal the identity of the whistleblower?
1. It is only illegal for the inspector general to reveal the name of the whistle blower. Technically, it is legal for anyone else to reveal the whistleblower's name. However, there could be potential ramifications that would be classified as illegal under the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998.
ReplyDelete3. The potential consequences of outing the whistleblower is either increasing his credit or trying to discredit him, and also somebody could try and kill him. The other political consequences are making him publicly testify to Congress. The precedent would be completely changed if the president revealed the identity of the whistleblower because it would look immature and as if he was trying to cover something up.
ReplyDelete1. It is illegal to reveal the identity of a whistleblower. Because they need protection from retribution and backlash, they need the protection. There is no legal ground to out the whistleblower; Trump wants to find out who outed him so he attempts to reveal the identity of the whistleblower by discrediting them and claiming that they weren't present during his call.
ReplyDelete1. Under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998(ICWPA), the inspector general should not disclose the whistleblower’s identity without their consent. Once the complaint is out of the inspector general’s hands the law does little to guarantee the whistleblower anonymity. Members of the House Committee on Intelligence could reveal the whistleblower's identity even though they would technically violate their committee's rules and face censure. Censure is symbolic, however, and would not remove a House member from Congress. So, someone could theoretically release the name of the whistleblower and it would be legal, no matter the consequence on the whistleblower.
ReplyDelete1. The whistleblower name should not be discussed unless there's proven consent according to the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act. As though this law doesn't protect what the whistleblower does, it protects its identity. Therefore, wouldn't help Trump as much anyway because he can talk about what the whistleblower does but in the end won't help him unless he has proof of the whistleblower. His proof would be the consent of him discussing the details, including its name; by he can't so it would be of no use. This is a major threat for Trump because this act prevents him from exposing those who are threatening him and his campaign, which could affect his campaign in the long run.
ReplyDelete1. The provision of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act that says the whistleblower’s identity should not be disclosed without their consent, unless the intelligence watchdog determines that “such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation", protects their identity from being revealed. This is because revealing the whistleblower's identity threatens his or her safety during or after the trial.
ReplyDeleteOuting a whistleblower can lead to them and their family being put in danger and can lead to many ramifications for them in the work place. Although they cannot be fired, and there are protections provided for them within the Whistleblower Protection Act, they can still face hostility both in and out of the workplace. They may also have to testify in Congress. Finally, the outing of a whistleblower by Donald Trump could change precedent and make it ok to continue to out whistleblowers in the future. If this happens, whistleblowers will fear speaking out and the corruptions within our government will not be uncovered, and our government could grow more and more corrupt.
ReplyDelete1. An individual can file an action under those laws through a DC attorney and they have even awarded funds to whistleblowers without identifying them publicly. Even under these programs, however, there have been instances in which the identity of the whistleblower had to be revealed. If the SEC has to pursue a case against a defendant in court on a criminal action for example, and they want to rely on a whistleblower’s testimony they likely will have to reveal that whistleblower because the whistleblower may be entitled to a reward and decision-makers arguably should be able to consider that when considering their testimony. That aside, the SEC has been very very protective of the rights of whistleblowers who choose to be anonymous.
ReplyDelete2. The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 only protects the whistleblower's anonymity from being revealed by the inspector general, but not anyone else. It also bans retaliation against the employee who reports that misconduct. However, the act doesn't stop the president or anyone in Congress from identifying the whistleblower.
ReplyDelete1. According to the Whistleblower Protection Act, it says that you cannot disclose the whistleblowers identity without consent, unless it is inevitable during the investigation. This is to help the whistleblower avoid backlash, and protect his career and safety following the trial.
ReplyDeleteIt is not legal for Trump to reveal the identity of the whistleblower. The whistleblower act stated that only with the consent of the whistleblower may their identity be revealed to the public. With this in mind, if the whistleblower would be revealed, it would indirectly harm the first amendment’s freedom of speech as critics against the government would become afraid to speak up if their privacy was compromised in any way. If Trump himself called out the whistleblower, it would bring suspicion to his actions which may compromise his election.
ReplyDeleteAccording to other people, only the inspector general is not allowed to disclose the name of the whistleblower. Technically then, anyone else who knows the identity of the whistleblower is allowed to reveal it. However, if the name is revealed, our entire society and government will fall apart. No one will want to stand up for their rights if they know that their name could be revealed and that there could be serious consequences to that. Revealing the name would discourage many people for fighting for the right thing and encourage people to be submissive, which is not what our society is built on.
ReplyDelete1). Yes and no. There are people who can reveal the name. The inspector general of the case can most definitely not reveal the name of the whistleblower for case confidentiality but anyone else can and may. It is a matter of how they reveal the name of the whistleblower or how they obtained the information that could lead to their treatment under the Whistleblower Protection Act.
ReplyDelete