Whistleblowing on national security matters can be complex due to the confidentiality and secrecy that typically surround such efforts. Disclosing sensitive documents to the general public can potentially expose top-secret government operations.

However, it becomes necessary for individuals with insider information to bring to light any misuse of funds, resources, or authority that is being disguised under the guise of security.

To address this issue, there are specific rules in place for current and former officials who wish to release privileged information. Laws have also been passed in response to scandals that were exposed by whistleblowers.

Rule 30 provides guidance on the appropriate steps to take when whistleblowing on matters related to national security.

The full public law enacting protections for intelligence agency whistleblowers is located at

• Public Law 113–126, title VI, § 604, July 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 1421.

Rodney Perry, Intelligence Whistleblower Protection: In Brief, Congressional Research Service (Oct. 23, 2014), is an excellent overview of the laws covering intelligence agency whistleblowers.

Office of the Director of National Intelligence web pages explaining the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act.

U.S. Department of Defense Office of Inspector General, Guide to Investigating Military Whistleblower Reprisal and Restriction Complaints.

Presidential Policy Directive 19 (PPD-19) (Oct. 10, 2012), Protecting Whistleblowers with Access to Classified Information, provides some protection for intelligence community employees against retaliation for lawfully blowing the whistle.

In addition, employees and contractors are protected from reprisals in the security clearance adjudication process. PPD-19 requires that the Inspector General review whistleblower reprisal allegations in violation of PPD-19.

The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act is an early law that sets forth procedures for intelligence agency employees to report information to Congress. It is limited to reporting “urgent concerns.” The act may protect employees from criminal prosecution, but it does not prohibit retaliation and is therefore deficient:

• Public Law 105-272
• Dan Meyer and David Berenbaum: “The WASP’s Nest: Intelligence Community Whistleblowing and Source Protection,” 8 Journal of National Security Law and Policy (May 8, 2015)
• New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) (Pentagon Papers case)
• Snepp v. U.S., 444 U.S. 507 (1980)
• U.S. v. Marchetti, 466 F.2d 1309 (4th Cir. 1972) (cases discussing the pre-publication review process)

The FBI Whistleblower Protection Act is codified at:

• 5 U.S.C. § 2303

In 2016 the Senate Judiciary Committee issued a report critical of this act and proposed reforms:

• S. Rep. 114-261

In 2015–16 the FBI whistleblower program was studied by both Congress and the Government Accountability Office (GAO):

• U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Whistleblower Protection: Additional Actions Needed to Improve DOJ’s Handling of FBI Retaliation Complaints“ (GAO-15-112, Jan. 2015)
• Senate Judiciary Committee, “FBI Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2016,” Senate Report No. 114-261 (May 25, 2016)

First Amendment Rights to Blow the Whistle

• Webster v DOE, 486 U.S. 592 (1982).
• Davis v Billington, 10-00036 (2014).
• Sanjour v. EPA, 56 F.3d 85 (1995).
• Weaver v. USIA, 87 F.3d 1429 (1996).
• Hatfill v. Gonzales, 519 F. Supp. 2d 13 (2007).
• Lee v. DOJ, 428 F.3d 299 (2005).

Pre-Publication Review

• Snepp v. USA (CIA), 444 U.S. 507 (1980).
• United States v. Marchetti, 466 F.2d 1309 (1972).
• FAA v. Cooper, 132 U.S. 1441 (March 28, 2012).
• The Thomas Drake Indictment (2010).

Important Cases

• Sanjour v. EPA (1st Amendment)
• Snepp v. USA (CIA) (Pre-Publication Review)
• Edmonds v. FBI (States Secret)
• Edmonds v. FBI (Freedom of Infromation Act)
• Weaver v. USIA (1st Amendment)
• Shaffer v. DIA (Right to Counsel)
• Tripp v. Executive Office of the President (Privacy Act)
• Hatfill v. Gonzales (Privacy Act)
• Lee v. DOJ (Privacy Act)
• Turner v. Gonzales (Title VII)