June, 24 2009, 11:03am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Tom Devine, Legal Director
Phone: 202.457.0034, ext. 124
Email: tomd@whistleblower.org
Shanna Devine, GAP Legislative Coor.
Phone: 202.457.0034, ext. 132
Email: shannad@whistleblower.org
Dylan Blaylock, Communications Dir.
Phone: 202.457.0034, ext. 137
Email: dylanb@whistleblower.org
MSPB Ruling Guts Whistleblower Protection Act
WASHINGTON
Yesterday, Tuesday June 23rd, the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) issued a landmark ruling against whistleblowers in MacLean v. Department of Homeland Security.
The decision effectively removes any remaining enforcement authority
for the already-discredited Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA).
The
MSPB's decision gives government agencies the power to issue
regulations overriding the free speech rights contained within WPA.
Government Accountability Project (GAP) Legal Director Tom Devine
commented, "Until Congress acts, the Whistleblower Protection Act is
dead. The MacLean decision means government agencies can fire
employees for any disclosure otherwise protected by the WPA. The
decision reduces the WPA to a voluntary guideline that agencies can
cancel at will by issuing blanket gag regulations."
MacLean v. Department of Homeland Security Background
GAP
and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association had submitted a
friend of the court brief on Robert MacLean's behalf. MacLean was a
10-year federal law enforcement officer, and U.S. Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) Federal Air Marshal (FAM) with an unblemished
record. In July 2003, he successfully blew the whistle on agency plans
to secretly offset budget shortfalls by eliminating air marshals from
long distance flights in the midst of a terrorism alert over suicide
terrorist hijackings. After public congressional pressure, DHS's plans
were canceled. On April 11, 2006, the agency fired MacLean for using
previously-undesignated Sensitive Security Information (SSI) in the
2003 disclosure. SSI is a blanket category for anything "detrimental to
the security of aviation" - and can be applied to virtually anything.
MacLean's alleged misconduct was entirely "ex post facto": the agency
had not yet issued regulations prohibiting release of SSI when he made
the disclosure. The facts of the case illustrate the stakes for the
public if whistleblowers are silenced.
* In late
July 2003, MacLean received a DHS intelligence warning of an imminent
terrorist suicide hijacking threat. It was so severe that FAMs were
mandated to attend unprecedented, one-on-one threat briefings in their
field office regardless of their duty status. No successful attacks
were carried out, but a subsequent DHS report confirmed the plans.* In late July 2003, MacLean also learned that due to a budget
shortfall (caused by suspect contract spending), 60 days of FAM
coverage would be canceled from August 2 until the fiscal year ended on
September 30, 2003 for the highest risk, long distance flights, because
they required overnight accommodations. (His concerns later were
confirmed by a March 31, 2004 GAO report.) He protested to a
supervisor, and to three DHS Office of Inspector General field offices,
all of whom declined to act and said he should drop the issue.* MacLean then disclosed to a media representative the TSA text message
canceling coverage. Other media quickly picked up the story, which
spread and sparked outraged bipartisan congressional protests. Less
than a day after the initial news story, the TSA canceled the plans to
eliminate coverage, publicly explaining that its orders to FAMs had
been "a mistake."* Almost three years later, in April 2006,
the TSA fired MacLean, specifically because his disclosure was SSI. The
TSA justified its position through an ad hoc order issued on August 31,
2006 (three years after his disclosure - four months after his
termination), that the text message was SSI. When he disclosed the
message, there had been no markings indicating that the information was
classified, SSI, or in any way restricted. It was not sent by secure
means.
The MSPB Decision
For
over three years MacLean has fought for a hearing. On Tuesday, the MSPB
ruled he can have one, but without any help from the Whistleblower
Protection Act. The ruling redefines WPA language giving employees
public free speech rights to disclose information unless it is
"specifically prohibited by law." Since 1978, that has meant
disclosures barred by legislative statute, because when it wrote the
law Congress shrank initial restrictions from disclosures barred by
"law, rule or regulation" to merely those specifically banned by "law."
Its legislative history also defined "law" to mean statute. In 30
years, the issue had appeared in one 1993 decision when the MSPB flatly
rejected the authority of agency regulations to override Congress.
Current Merit Systems Protection Board Chairman Neil McPhie, a Bush
holdover, rewrote the law, and in doing so granted agencies a blank
check to cancel the WPA. In order to reach that result, the Board:
* Ignored the word "specifically" in "specifically prohibited by law,"
passively killing a cornerstone of the statute and paving the way for
blanket gag orders, such as SSI in this case.* Based its
entire argument on a Supreme Court definition of "law" from an entirely
different context, applying the same definition for permitting
government exercise of authority as for restraining citizen exercise of
right. Other than the word "law," there is no public policy common
ground.* Explained away inconsistent adjacent WPA language
in which Congress separately shielded disclosures of "law, rule and
regulation" as merely "redundant," and should be extended to free
speech restrictions in the same sentence limited to "law" without any
mention of rules or regulations.* Rejected uncontested
legislative history language that defined "law" to mean "statutory law
and court interpretation of those statutes [, and] ... not ... to agency
rules and regulations." The Board's reasoning was that Congress only
said it once.
The MacLean decision breaks new
ground in MSPB hostility toward whistleblowers but it is not an
aberration. Since 1978, in cases involving national policy
significance, no whistleblower ever has prevailed against retaliation
involving government misconduct or cover-ups. Since 1978, no employee
has won a decision on the merits in the nation's Washington DC region,
where the most significant abuses of power occur. Indeed, the
Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 was passed because the MSPB only
had ruled for whistleblowers four times during the 1980s. Since 2000,
the corresponding record of employee victories is three. Chairman
McPhie has ruled against whistleblowers in 44 out of 45 decisions on
the merits since his 2003 arrival.
"There no longer is any
credible debate that the MSPB is unfit as the sole opportunity for
whistleblowers day in court," stated Devine, who added, "Government
managers oppose House-passed legislation that permits jury trials to
enforce whistleblower rights."
Devine added, "This outrageous
decision should be a wake-up call for the Obama administration to
appoint a new MSPB chair and Special Counsel to protect whistleblowers.
It appears Chairman McPhie is seeking a legacy of killing the good
government law he has already crippled. The President's promise of
transparency will be a magnet for cynicism until he appoints merit
system leaders who believe in his policies."
Adding absurdity
to this specious decision, the MSPB initially tried but failed to keep
its decision killing the anti-secrecy law a secret. It initially marked
the whole ruling "Sensitive Security Information." By mistake, however,
the Board posted its ruling on the MSPB Web site anyway - the same SSI
breach for which it approved MacLean's termination when he blew the
whistle on cancellation of Air Marshal coverage during a terrorist
alert. Over the course of 48 hours, the document was moved to a
password protected site, and then reappeared with the SSI markings
removed. There has been no word of upcoming Board resignations or
accountability actions over the "security" breach.
The Government Accountability Project (GAP) is a 30-year-old nonprofit public interest group that promotes government and corporate accountability by advancing occupational free speech, defending whistleblowers, and empowering citizen activists. We pursue this mission through our Nuclear Safety, International Reform, Corporate Accountability, Food & Drug Safety, and Federal Employee/National Security programs. GAP is the nation's leading whistleblower protection organization.
LATEST NEWS
'We Have a Choice Here to Act': IPCC Climate Report to Sound Most Dire Warning Yet
"The central message from climate scientists is unmistakable: governments must rally to drastically cut emissions and cease the extraction and burning of fossil fuels this decade."
Mar 20, 2023
A United Nations panel composed of the world's top scientists is set to release its latest climate assessment on Monday as governments fail to heed repeated, increasingly urgent warnings that the window for action to prevent catastrophic global heating is nearly shut.
The landmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will come after a year in which planet-warming CO2 emissions shattered records once again as the impacts of such pollution—from "apocalyptic" flooding in Pakistan to deadly drought in East Africa—continued to mount.
After repeated delays, government delegations signed off on the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report on Sunday, clearing the way for the formal release of a sprawling synthesis of years of climate research.
The Associated Pressreported that the final decision came after "officials from big nations such as China, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, the United States, and the European Union haggled through the weekend over the wording of key phrases in the text."
Lesley Hughes, a former IPCC author and a director of the Australia-based Climate Council, said ahead of the report's release that "while this is a summary report of work we'd already seen in development, there is no doubt the findings of this report will be dire."
"Since the previous IPCC report was released, we've had even more unnatural disasters," Hughes added. "We must focus on the fact that predictions are now becoming observations. We've also had a period since the previous IPCC report came out where global emissions are rising once again, so the gap between where we are and where we need to go is increasing rather than decreasing."
"If we haven't seriously turned things around by the time the next such assessment report is due, then we'll be in very deep trouble."
The IPCC's 2021 report was deemed a "code red for humanity," a glaring signal that accelerated global action to phase out fossil fuel extraction and use was needed to avert disaster.
But in the years since, governments—specifically the rich nations most responsible for the climate crisis—have refused to act with the speed and ambition that scientists say is necessary.
At the end of 2022, the U.N. climate conference—an event teeming with fossil fuel lobbyists—ended with no concrete action to rein in oil and gas production.
As a result, hugely profitable global fossil fuel giants are planning to expand their operations in the coming years, potentially locking in additional emissions and further imperiling efforts to meet critical warming targets.
Governments, including those that claim to view the climate crisis as an existential threat, are actively aiding the continued extraction of fossil fuels. Just last week, the Biden administration approved the largest proposed oil drilling project on U.S. public land despite widespread opposition.
"This is the kind of thing that we simply can't afford to do anymore," Kristina Dahl of the Union of Concerned Scientists wrote late last week. "The fossil fuel industry has, for decades, opposed and obstructed any meaningful action on climate change. And despite ardent claims otherwise, the industry has refused to commit to align its business model with what the IPCC says is required to minimize climate harms. The industry remains a barrier to the future the world's children deserve."
Simon Bradshaw, the Climate Council's director of research, said Monday that the IPCC's new report will represent "a final warning."
"The central message from climate scientists is unmistakable: governments must rally to drastically cut emissions and cease the extraction and burning of fossil fuels this decade," said Bradshaw. "That message has been delivered repeatedly, and consistently, for many decades."
"We are seeing progress when it comes to renewable energy uptake, and cleaner transport, but things just aren't moving fast enough. If we haven't seriously turned things around by the time the next such assessment report is due, then we'll be in very deep trouble," Bradshaw added. "We have a choice here to act swiftly this decade. If we start giving it our all right now, we can avert the worst of it. So many solutions are readily available, like solar and wind power, storage, electric appliances, and clean transport options. We need to get our skates on."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Warren Demands Probe Into Bank Failures, Urges Biden to Fire Powell
Jerome Powell "has failed," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren. "I don't think he should be Chairman of the Federal Reserve."
Mar 19, 2023
Sen. Elizabeth Warren this weekend called on federal officials to investigate the causes of recent bank failures and urged President Joe Biden to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, whom she has criticized for intensifying financial deregulation and imposing job- and wage-destroying interest rate hikes.
Asked on Sunday by Chuck Todd of NBC's "Meet the Press" about the possibility of Powell imposing yet another interest rate hike despite ongoing market turmoil, Warren (D-Mass.) said, "I've been in the camp for a long time that these extraordinary rate increases that he has taken on, these extreme rate increases, are something that he should not be doing."
Powell "has a dual mandate," said Warren. "Yes, he is responsible for dealing with inflation, but he is also responsible for employment. And what Chair Powell is trying to do, and he has said fairly explicitly, is that they are trying to, in effect, slow down the economy so that, this is by the Fed's own estimate, two million people will lose their jobs. And I believe that is not what the chair of the Federal Reserve should be doing."
Since the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia's invasion of Ukraine disrupted international supply chains—rendered fragile by decades of neoliberal globalization—powerful corporations in highly consolidated industries have taken advantage of these and other crises such as the bird flu outbreak to justify profit-boosting price hikes that far outpace the increased costs of doing business.
"Raising interest rates doesn't do anything to solve" a cost-of-living crisis driven primarily by "price gouging, supply chain kinks, [and] the war in Ukraine," Warren said Sunday. "All it does is put millions of people out of work."
"Jay Powell... has had two jobs. One is to deal with monetary policy, one is to deal with regulation. He has failed at both."
Powell, an ex-investment banker, was first appointed by then-President Donald Trump in 2018 and reappointed by Biden in 2021. Warren noted that she opposed Powell's nomination in both cases "because of his views on regulation and what he was already doing to weaken regulation."
"But I think he's failing in both jobs, both as the oversight and manager of these big banks, which is his job, and also what he's doing with inflation," said Warren.
Asked by Todd if Biden should fire Powell, Warren said: "My views on Jay Powell are well-known at this point. He has had two jobs. One is to deal with monetary policy, one is to deal with regulation. He has failed at both."
"Would you advise President Biden to replace him?" Todd inquired.
"I don't think he should be Chairman of the Federal Reserve," the Massachusetts Democrat responded. "I have said it as publicly as I know how to say it. I've said it to everyone."
Meanwhile, in a Saturday letter, Warren asked Richard Delmar, Tyler Smith, and Mark Bialek—respectively the deputy inspector general of the Treasury Department, acting inspector general of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and inspector general of the Fed's board of governors—to "immediately open a thorough, independent investigation of the causes of the bank management and regulatory and supervisory problems that resulted in this month's failure of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and Signature Bank (Signature) and deliver preliminary results within 30 days."
Until the Treasury Department, the Fed, and the FDIC "intervened to guarantee billions of dollars of deposits," the second- and third-biggest bank failures in U.S. history "threatened economic contagion and severe damage to the banking and financial systems," Warren noted. "The bank's executives, who took unnecessary risks or failed to hedge against entirely foreseeable threats, must be held accountable for these failures."
"But this mismanagement was allowed to occur because of a series of failures by lawmakers and regulators," Warren continued.
In 2018, several Democrats joined Republicans in approving Sen. Mike Crapo's (R-Idaho) Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, which weakened the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Crapo's deregulatory measure, signed into law by Trump, loosened federal oversight of banks with between $50 billion and $250 billion in assets—a category that includes SVB and Signature.
"As officials sought to develop a plan responding to SVB's failure, Chair Powell muzzled regulators from any public mention of the regulatory failures that occurred under his watch."
Moreover, the Fed under Powell's leadership "initiated key regulatory rollbacks," Warren wrote Saturday, echoing criticisms that she and financial industry watchdogs voiced earlier in the week. "And the banks' supervisors—particularly the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, which oversaw SVB—missed or ignored key signals about their impending failure."
It is "critical that your investigation be completely independent and free of influence from the bank executives or regulators that were responsible for action that led to these bank failures," Warren stressed. "I am particularly concerned that you avoid any interference from Fed Chair Jerome Powell, who bears direct responsibility for—and has a long record of failure involving—regulatory and supervisory matters involving these two banks."
"I have already asked Chair Powell to recuse himself from the Fed's internal investigation of this matter, but he has not yet responded to this request," wrote Warren. The progressive lawmaker said "this silence is troubling" in light of recent reporting that "as officials sought to develop a plan responding to SVB's failure, Chair Powell muzzled regulators from any public mention of the regulatory failures that occurred under his watch."
"Bank regulators and Congress must move quickly to close the gaps that allowed these bank failures to happen, and your investigation will provide us important insight as we take steps to do so," added Warren, who has introduced legislation to repeal a vital provision of the Trump-era bank deregulation law enacted five years ago with bipartisan support.
In appearances on three Sunday morning talk shows, Warren doubled down on her demands for an independent investigation into recent bank failures, stronger financial regulations, and punishing those responsible.
After lawmakers from both parties helped Trump fulfill his campaign promise to weaken federal oversight of the banking system, Powell "took a flamethrower to the regulations, saying, 'I'm doing this because Congress let me do it,'" Warren toldABC's "This Week" co-anchor Jonathan Karl. "And what happened was exactly what we should have predicted, and that is the banks, these big, multi-billion-dollar banks, loaded up on risk; they boosted their short-term profits; they gave themselves huge bonuses and big salaries; and they exploded their banks."
"When you explode a bank, you ought to be banned from banking forever."
"When you explode a bank, you ought to be banned from banking forever," said Warren, who acknowledged that criminal charges could be coming. "The Department of Justice has opened an investigation. I think that's appropriate for them to do. We'll see where the facts take them. But we've got to take a close look at this."
Not only did former SVB chief executive officer Greg Becker, who lobbied aggressively for the 2018 bank deregulation law, sell millions of dollars of shares as recently as late last month, but until federal regulators took control of the failed bank on March 10, he was on the board of directors at the San Francisco Fed—the institution responsible for overseeing SVB.
On Saturday, Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont announced that he plans to introduce legislation "to end this conflict of interest by banning big bank CEOs from serving on Fed boards."
"We've got to say overall that we can't keep repeating this approach of weakening the regulation over the banks, then stepping in when these giant banks get into trouble," Warren said Sunday, arguing for stronger federal oversight to prevent the need for bailouts.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Manhattan DA: Trump's Intimidation Efforts Won't Be Tolerated
Alvin Bragg's comments came after Trump urged his supporters to "protest" and "take our nation back" ahead of his expected indictment.
Mar 19, 2023
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said Saturday that former President Donald Trump's efforts to undermine his prosecutorial authority won't be tolerated.
In a memo to colleagues, Bragg wrote that "we do not tolerate attempts to intimidate our office or threaten the rule of law in New York."
"Our law enforcement partners will ensure that any specific or credible threats against the office will be fully investigated and that the proper safeguards are in place so all 1,600 of us have a secure work environment," Bragg continued.
"As with all of our investigations, we will continue to apply the law evenly and fairly, and speak publicly only when appropriate," he added.
"We do not tolerate attempts to intimidate our office or threaten the rule of law in New York."
Bragg's email didn't specifically name Trump, referring only to the "public comments surrounding an ongoing investigation by this office."
But it came just hours after the former president and leading 2024 GOP candidate claimed on his social media platform that he "will be arrested" on Tuesday and called on his supporters to "protest" and "take our nation back."
Trump is expected to be indicted by a Manhattan grand jury in a criminal case involving hush money paid to women who alleged sexual encounters with the former president, but its timing remains uncertain.
In a follow-up post on Truth Social, Trump wrote: "It's time!!! We are a nation in steep decline... We just can't allow this anymore. They're killing our nation as we sit back and watch. We must save America! Protest, protest, protest!!!"
Trump's call to action echoed how, six weeks after losing the 2020 presidential election, he fired off a tweet encouraging his supporters to join a "big protest" in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021. "Be there, will be wild!" he wrote. Hundreds of far-right extremists came and—after Trump told them to march from a rally near the White House to the Capitol—ransacked the halls of Congress in a bid to prevent lawmakers from certifying President Joe Biden's win. Several people died as a result of the insurrection, which was precipitated by Trump and his Republican allies' ceaseless lies about voter fraud.
Mother Jones' D.C. bureau chief David Corn noted that Trump has recently "excused or dismissed the violence of January 6."
"He is an authoritarian willing to (again) use violence for his own ends," Corn tweeted. "That is a threat to the nation."
Trump started priming his supporters for unrest more than a year ago. At a January 2022 rally in Texas, the ex-president promised to pardon January 6 rioters if he wins in 2024 and called for protests if prosecutors investigating his effort to subvert the 2020 election and other alleged crimes attempt to bring charges.
"If these radical, vicious, racist prosecutors do anything wrong or illegal, I hope we are going to have in this country the biggest protest we have ever had... in Washington, D.C., in New York, in Atlanta, and elsewhere because our country and our elections are corrupt," Trump told a crowd of his supporters 14 months ago.
On Saturday, HuffPost's senior White House correspondent S.V. Dáte asked if high-ranking Republicans had anything to say about Trump's most recent threats.
"If a new round of political violence occurs, McCarthy should absolutely shoulder some of the blame."
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and other right-wing lawmakers quickly made it clear that they're siding with Trump over the rule of law.
Trump is expected to be charged in connection with payments his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, made to buy the silence of adult film actress Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal—both of whom say they had affairs with Trump—at the height of the 2016 presidential election.
Cohen has testified that at Trump's direction, he organized payments totaling $280,000 to Daniels and McDougal. According to Cohen, the Trump Organization reimbursed him $420,000 and categorized it as a legal fee. Trump's former fixer pleaded guilty to federal campaign violations in 2018.
Trump has so far evaded charges but that could soon change, as Manhattan prosecutors are expected to accuse Trump of overseeing the false recording of expenses in his company's internal records.
McCarthy on Saturday described Bragg's probe as "an outrageous abuse of power by a radical D.A. who lets violent criminals walk as he pursues political vengeance against President Trump."
"I'm directing relevant committees to immediately investigate if federal funds are being used to subvert our democracy by interfering in elections with politically motivated prosecutions," he tweeted.
According toMSNBC's Hayes Brown:
By the time he fired off his own tweet, McCarthy had presumably seen Trump calling his supporters into the streets, echoing the incitement of violence against Congress two years ago. The speaker lived through that experience and witnessed firsthand the effect of Trump's words. And yet he opted to pretend otherwise in the weeks and months after the January 6 attack as he flew to Mar-a-Lago in supplication. In handing over unvetted security footage from the attack to a far-right propagandist last month, McCarthy is once again complicit in trying to whitewash the assault. If a new round of political violence occurs, McCarthy should absolutely shoulder some of the blame.
McCarthy was far from alone. Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), for example, baselessly declared: "If they can come for Trump, they will come for you. This type of stuff only occurs in third world authoritarian countries."
The GOP's current framing of ongoing investigations into Trump as political "witch hunts" is not new. McCarthy and others reacted in a similar manner when the FBI in early August searched Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort and removed boxes of documents as part of a federal probe into the ex-president's handling of classified materials.
In New York, meanwhile, law enforcement and security agencies at all levels are reportedly preparing for the possibility of a Trump indictment as early as this week.
If indicted, Trump would become the first U.S. president to face criminal charges in or out of office. Trump, who has denied all wrongdoing, has vowed to keep campaigning regardless of whether he's arrested.
The New York Times reported that if "Trump is arraigned, he will almost certainly be released without spending any time behind bars because the indictment is likely to contain only nonviolent felony charges."
However, the Manhattan D.A.'s hush money probe is just one of many pending cases against Trump. The twice-impeached former president is also facing a state-level criminal investigation in Georgia over his efforts to overturn that state's 2020 election results, as well as federal probes into his coup attempt and his handling of classified government documents.
As The Associated Pressobserved, it's not clear when the other investigations into Trump "will end or whether they might result in criminal charges."
"But they will continue regardless of what happens in New York," the outlet noted, "underscoring the ongoing gravity—and broad geographic scope—of the legal challenges confronting the former president."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.