February, 03 2009,  11:41am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact: 
Adam Miles, GAP Legislative Representative
202.276.2007
adamm@whistleblower.org
Charity Wilson, American Federation of Government Employees
202.639.6440
Lindsey M. Williams, National Whistleblower Center
202.342.1903   
Donna Lenhoff, National Employment Lawyers Association
202.898.2880
Contact: Marthena Cowart, Project on Government Oversight
202.347.3958
Angela Canterbury, Public Citizen
202.454.5188
Celia Wexler, Union of Concerned Scientists
202.390.5481
Michael Ostrolenk, Liberty Coalition
301.717.0599
Dina Long, National Treasury Employees Union
202.572.5500 ext. 7058
Patrice McDermott, OpenTheGovernment.org
202.332.6736
Dane vonBreichenruchard, US Bill of Rights Foundation
202.546.7079
Sean Moulton, OMB Watch
202.234.8494
Post Editorial Misses Mark on Whistleblowers; Protections in Stimulus Bill Help Workers Hold Government Accountable
A Joint Statement from GAP, American Federation of Government Employees, National Whistleblower Center, National Employment Lawyers Association, Project on Government Oversight, Public Citizen, Union of Concerned Scientists, Liberty Coalition, National Treasury Employees Union, OpenTheGoverment.org, U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation, and OMB Watch
WASHINGTON
Monday's Washington
Post editorial, "Wrong Way to Protect," did a disservice
to its readers and the taxpayers when it opposed provisions in the economic
stimulus bill that are designed to empower federal whistleblowers. 
The editorial argues that the reform should be pursued
through ordinary legislative channels rather than included in the stimulus,
stating "This is not the way it's supposed to work."  This
is exactly how it is supposed to work: Federal whistleblower protection
legislation has had the benefit of hearings, and has been vetted in both
chambers for several years. This is not an extraneous measure, as the editorial
suggests. In both chambers, the original stimulus bills included whistleblower
protections for state and local employees. Members of the House had the good
sense to recognize that the massive stimulus package creates an urgent need for
federal employees, who are the taxpayers' first line of defense against
waste and fraud, to be given the same protections afforded state and local
employees.  
Congress has diligently built a record to strengthen
federal whistleblower protections through a robust legislative history (click here to see the
fact sheet). Identical whistleblower protections overwhelmingly passed the
House as a stand-alone measure, 331-94, in 2007. Despite eight years of
hearings, committee meetings, mark-ups, and four House and Senate votes,
federal employees who expose waste, fraud and abuse remain vulnerable to
intimidation, reassignment and termination, with no effective means to fight
retaliation. Even so, whistleblowers each day risk their careers and come
forward with evidence of misconduct, much to the benefit of The Washington Post and other newspapers
that have earned prizes for their reporting on information whistleblowers
provided. 
In addition, the editorial cites curious concerns
about disclosures of classified information (which could have been cleared
up with a careful reading of the text). There is nothing in the bill to
condone any "breach" - "unilateral" or otherwise.
However, after some members of Congress raised legitimate concerns about the
procedure for disclosure of classified information, the House managers
agreed on the floor to work together with the Intelligence Committee to
address those concerns. The members who raised the concerns were satisfied, and
voted for the whistleblower amendment. We too are confident that those issues
will be resolved. In fact, because the law will allow for only lawful
disclosures to those with the appropriate security clearances, it actually will
prevent leaks and so-called "breaches."  
But it is important to recognize the central purpose
behind protecting federal employees in the stimulus:  Taxpayers need their
help in detecting fraud and waste. The stimulus bill authorizes the expenditure
of billions of taxpayer dollars; as taxpayers, we need the best oversight
possible. Countless studies have verified that whistleblowers are the most
effective weapon against fraud. This includes recent statistics by the U.S.
Department of Justice, which announced that whistleblowers were responsible for
returning over $1 billion to the U.S. Treasury in 2008 alone. In addition,
PriceWaterhouseCoopers recently surveyed more than 5,000 corporations worldwide
and found that whistleblowers, by far, were the most effective means for the
initial detection of corporate fraud, besting internal auditors and law
enforcement. The editorial asserts that it is somehow
"disingenuous" to claim that whistleblowers will "enhance
accountability." But the evidence shows that there is no better means of
enhancing accountability. We believe there is no excuse to spend another $888
billion without first locking in this proven accountability safeguard. Lastly,
whistleblower protections, unlike every other provision in the stimulus, will
save money, not spend it.
If lawmakers reject these provisions, they will be
sending federal employees a very strong signal:  Keep your head down and
don't rock the boat. Employees know what happens to colleagues who step
forward and expose waste, fraud and abuse in government. Federal workers who
have reported wrongdoing have lost more than 98.5 percent of cases at the
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals since 1994, when Congress last unanimously
strengthened the law. During the entire Bush administration, the U.S. Merit
Systems Protection Board ruled only twice that the whistleblower law was
violated. 
It's time to end the culture of secrecy and
guarantee that the federal workforce has our support in making sure our
stimulus dollars are spent honestly and effectively. 
LATEST NEWS
Judge Blocks Trump From Requiring Proof of Citizenship on Federal Voting Form
"Trump’s attempt to impose a documentary proof of citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form is an unconstitutional power grab," said one plaintiff in the case.
Oct 31, 2025
A federal judge on Friday permanently blocked part of President Donald Trump's executive order requiring proof of US citizenship on federal voter registration forms, a ruling hailed by one plaintiff in the case as "a clear victory for our democracy."
Siding with Democratic and civil liberties groups that sued the administration over Trump's March edict mandating a US passport, REAL ID-compliant document, military identification, or similar proof in order to register to vote in federal elections, Senior US District Judge for the District of Columbia Colleen Kollar-Kotelly found the directive to be an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers.
“Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the states and to Congress, this court holds that the president lacks the authority to direct such changes," Kollar-Kotelly, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, wrote in her 81-page ruling.
"The Constitution addresses two types of power over federal elections: First, the power to determine who is qualified to vote, and second, the power to regulate federal election procedures," she continued. "In both spheres, the Constitution vests authority first in the states. In matters of election procedures, the Constitution assigns Congress the power to preempt State regulations."
"By contrast," Kollar-Kotelly added, "the Constitution assigns no direct role to the president in either domain."
This is the second time Kollar-Kotelly has ruled against Trump's proof-of-citizenship order. In April, she issued a temporary injunction blocking key portions of the directive.
"The president doesn't have the authority to change election procedures just because he wants to."
"The court upheld what we've long known: The president doesn't have the authority to change election procedures just because he wants to," the ACLU said on social media.
Sophia Lin Lakin of the ACLU, a plaintiff in the case, welcomed the decision as “a clear victory for our democracy."
"President Trump’s attempt to impose a documentary proof of citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form is an unconstitutional power grab," she added.
Campaign Legal Center president Trevor Potter said in a statement: "This federal court ruling reaffirms that no president has the authority to control our election systems and processes. The Constitution gives the states and Congress—not the president—the responsibility and authority to regulate our elections."
"We are glad that this core principle of separation of powers has been upheld and celebrate this decision, which will ensure that the president cannot singlehandedly impose barriers on voter registration that would prevent millions of Americans from making their voices heard in our elections," Potter added. 
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘It Does Not Have to Be This Way’: Child Hunger Set to Surge as Trump Withholds SNAP Funds
Two federal courts ruled Friday that the White House must release contingency food assistance funds, but officials have suggested they will not comply with the orders.
Oct 31, 2025
Though two federal judges ruled on Friday that the Trump administration must use contingency funds to continue providing food assistance that 42 million Americans rely on, White House officials have signaled they won't comply with the court orders even as advocates warn the lapse in nutrition aid funding will cause an unprecedented child hunger crisis that families are unprepared to withstand.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is planning to freeze payments to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program on Saturday as the government shutdown reaches the one-month mark, claiming it can no longer fund SNAP and cannot tap $5 billion in contingency funds that would allow recipients to collect at least partial benefits in November.
President Donald Trump said Thursday that his administration is "going to get it done," regarding the funding of SNAP, but offered no details on his plans to keep the nation's largest anti-hunger program funded, and his agriculture secretary, Brooke Rollins, would not commit on Friday to release the funds if ordered to do so.
"We're looking at all the options," Rollins told CNN before federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island ordered the administration to fund the program.
The White House and Republicans in Congress have claimed the only way to fund SNAP is for Democratic lawmakers to vote for a continuing resolution proposed by the GOP to keep government funding at current levels; Democrats have refused to sign on to the resolution because it would allow healthcare subsidies under the Affordable Care Act to expire.
The administration previously said it would use the SNAP contingency funds before reversing course last week. A document detailing the contingency plan disappeared from the USDA's website this week. The White House's claims prompted two lawsuits filed by Democrat-led states and cities as well as nonprofit groups that demanded the funding be released.
On Thursday evening, US Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) addressed her followers on the social media platform X about the impending hunger emergency, emphasizing that the loss of SNAP benefits for 42 million Americans—39% of whom are children—is compounding a child poverty crisis that has grown since 2021 due to Republicans' refusal to extend pandemic-era programs like the enhanced child tax credit.
"One in eight kids in America lives in poverty in 2024," said Jayapal. "Sixty-one percent of these kids—that's about 6 million kids— have at least one parent who is employed. So it's not that people are not working, they're working, but they're not earning enough."
"I just want to be really clear that it is a policy choice to have people who are hungry, to have people who are poor," she said.
Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, an economist at Georgetown University, told The Washington Post that the loss of benefits for millions of children, elderly, and disabled people all at once is "unprecedented."
“We’ve never seen the elderly and children removed from the program in this sort of way,” Schanzenbach told the Post. “It really is hard to predict something of this magnitude."
A Thursday report by the economic justice group Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) emphasized that the impending child hunger crisis comes four months after Republicans passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which slashed food assistance by shifting some of the cost of SNAP to the states from the federal government, expanding work requirements, and ending adjustments to benefits to keep pace with food inflation.
Meanwhile, the law is projected to increase the incomes of the wealthiest 20% of US households by 3.7% while reducing the incomes of the poorest 20% of Americans by an average of 3.8%.
Now, said ATF, "they're gonna let hard-working Americans go hungry so billionaires can get richer."
At Time on Thursday, Stephanie Land, author of Class: A Memoir of Motherhood, Hunger, and Higher Education, wrote that "the cruelty is the point" of the Trump administration's refusal to ensure the 61-year-old program, established by Democratic former President Lyndon B. Johnson, doesn't lapse for the first time in its history.
"Once, when we lost most of our food stamp benefit, I mentally catalogued every can and box of food in the cupboards, and how long the milk we had would last," wrote Land. "They’d kicked me, the mother of a recently-turned 6-year-old, off of food stamps because I didn’t meet the work requirement of 20 hours a week. I hadn’t known that my daughter’s age had qualified me to not have to meet that requirement, and without warning, the funds I carefully budgeted for food were gone."
"It didn’t matter that I was a full-time student and worked 10-15 hours a week," she continued. "This letter from my local government office said it wasn’t sufficient to meet their stamp of approval. In their opinion, I wasn’t working enough to deserve to eat. My value, my dignity as a human being, was completely dependent on my ability to work, as if nothing else about me awarded me the ability to feel satiated by food."
"Whether the current administration decides to continue to fund SNAP in November or not, the intended damage has already been done. The fear of losing means for food, shelter, and healthcare is the point," Land added. "Programs referred to as a 'safety net' are anything but when they can be removed with a thoughtless, vague message, or scribble from a permanent marker. It’s about control to gain compliance, and our most vulnerable populations will struggle to keep up."
On Thursday, the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) expressed hope that the president's recent statement saying the White House will ensure people obtain their benefits will "trigger the administration to use its authority and precedent to prevent disruptions in food assistance."
"The issue at hand is not political. It is about ensuring that parents can put food on the table, older adults on fixed incomes can meet their nutritional needs, and children continue to receive the meals they rely on. SNAP is one of the most effective tools for reducing hunger and supporting local economies," said the group.
"Swift and transparent action is needed," FRAC added, "to restore stability, maintain public confidence, and ensure that our state partners, local economies and grocers, and the millions of children, older adults, people with disabilities, and veterans who participate in SNAP are not left bearing the consequences of federal inaction."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Immigration Agents Cause Chaos In Chicago Suburb as New Report Documents 'Pattern of Extreme Brutality'
"Our message for ICE is simple: Get the hell out," said Evanston, Illinois Mayor Daniel Biss.
Oct 31, 2025
Officials in Evanston, Illinois are accusing federal immigration officials of "deliberately causing chaos" in their city during a Friday operation that led to angry protests from local residents.
As reported by Fox 32 Chicago, Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss and other local leaders held a news conference on Friday afternoon to denounce actions earlier in the day by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials.
"Our message for ICE is simple: Get the hell out of Evanston," Biss said during the conference.
In a social media post ahead of the press conference, Biss, who is currently a candidate for US Senate, described the agents' actions as "monstrous" and vowed that he would "continue to track the movement of federal agents in and around Evanston and ensure that the Evanston Police Department is responding in the appropriate fashion."
As of this writing, it is unclear how the incident involving the immigration officials in Evanston began, although witness Jose Marin told local publication Evanston Now that agents on Friday morning had deliberately caused a car crash in the area near the Chute Elementary School, and then proceeded to detain the vehicle's passengers.
Videos taken after the crash posted by Chicago Tribune investigative reporter Gregory Royal Pratt and by Evanston Now reporter Matthew Eadie show several people in the area angrily confronting law enforcement officials as they were in the process of detaining the passengers.
“You a criminal!” Evanston residents angrily confront immigration agents pic.twitter.com/t7jVaC4czq
— Gregory Royal Pratt (@royalpratt) October 31, 2025
Another video of ICE grabbing at least two people after a crash on Oakton/Asbury in Evanston
Witnesses say at least three were arrested by Feds pic.twitter.com/DStgCrKWTA
— Matthew Eadie (@mattheweadie22) October 31, 2025
The operation in Evanston came on the same day that Bellingcat published a report documenting what has been described as "a pattern of extreme brutality" being carried out by immigration enforcement officials in Illinois.
Specifically, the publication examined social media videos of immigration enforcement actions taken between October 9 to October 27, and found "multiple examples of force and riot control weapons being used" in apparent violation of a judge's temporary restraining order that banned such weapons except in cases where federal officers are in immediate danger.
"In total, we found seven [instances] that appeared to show the use of riot control weapons when there was seemingly no apparent immediate threat by protesters and no audible warnings given," Bellingcat reported. "Nineteen showed use of force, such as tackling people to the ground when they were not visibly resisting. Another seven showed agents ordering or threatening people to leave public places. Some of the events identified showed incidents that appeared to fall into more than one of these categories."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


