5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Public Citizen Lauds Senate Committee for Strengthening Bill to Modernize Whistleblower Protections
Statement of Angela Canterbury, Director of Advocacy, Public Citizen's Congress Watch Division
WASHINGTON
After many months of advocacy and negotiations, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee approved a bipartisan bill today that will dramatically strengthen and modernize protections for federal government whistleblowers.
Finally, many federal workers will be able to bring their claims of retaliation for whistleblowing before a jury of their peers should the administrative agency fail to rule within a reasonable amount of time. Federal scientists and transportation security workers get much-needed specific protections. The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2009 (S. 372) also closes several loopholes in the current law, including what qualifies as a protected disclosure.
While there is room for improvement in the bill, it is far and away a stronger bill than was passed last year in the Senate, and much closer to the House version, H.R. 1507. Public Citizen would like to see full access to jury trials, without qualifiers or sunset provisions, as well as coverage for all federal contractors. Work also must be done to ensure that the board reviewing claims by intelligence is truly independent and functional. We are encouraged that there will be opportunities to address some of these key reforms which are still needed as the legislation continues to move through the House and Senate.
Members of the committee, their staff, and White House liaisons worked with the whistleblower and taxpayer rights community to forge a bill with strong bipartisan support. They are to be commended, as are the members of the committee for their votes today - but none more than the lead co-sponsors Sens. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio) and their diligent staff for pursuing a bill that we expect will pass the Senate without objection soon.
The federal system for whistleblowing has been broken for a long time, causing countless workers to suffer in silence after witnessing waste, fraud or abuse in government. Today there is more hope than ever that the system soon will be fixed to truly protect whistleblowers and taxpayers.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
Top Democrats Face Rising Pressure to ‘Bring the Iran War Powers Resolution to the Floor Right Now’
Democrats may have enough votes to pass a war powers resolution before the two-week recess, but party leaders have still not committed to doing so, even as the president appears ready for a ground invasion.
Mar 26, 2026
Backlash is continuing to grow after US House Democratic leaders made the decision to push off a war powers vote on President Donald Trump's Iran war for more than two weeks, even though they may have the votes to pass it immediately.
With Trump appearing poised to make the deathly unpopular decision to deploy ground troops into Iran within days, momentum around an act to restrict his warmaking capabilities only continues to grow.
Most of the Democrats who killed the last war powers resolution are now reportedly on board. So is Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), who emerged from a closed-door House Armed Services Committee briefing on Wednesday saying she was “even more” opposed to boots on the ground than when she entered.
But despite having introduced the resolution himself, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, appeared to get cold feet about bringing it to the floor for a vote before next week's recess, a move which was met with anger and confusion from progressive critics.
A spokesperson for Democrats on the committee told Common Dreams on Wednesday that Meeks was very much committed to passing a bill to "hold President Trump accountable for his reckless war of choice," but that one could not be pursued until April 13, after the recess, because some of the necessary "yes" votes had left Washington.
Drop Site News co-founder Ryan Grim described this as a "pathetic" excuse. "As Trump threatens a ground invasion, Democratic members of Congress are saying they won’t do the one thing they are elected to do: Show up and vote," he wrote on social media.
Additionally, Grim reported on Thursday that Reps. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) and Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.) had since returned to town. The only Democrat not currently in DC, he said, was Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.), who said on Wednesday that his wife was undergoing a routine surgery.
Axios reported on Thursday afternoon that Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) is also absent due to the recent death of his father, and Rep. Jared Golden (Maine), one of the Democrats who opposed the last war powers vote, was still wavering as of Wednesday.
Even with some absences, Republicans are also not at full strength. Assuming that Republican Reps. Thomas Massie (Ky.) and Warren Davidson (Ohio) plan to vote yes, as they did in February, there may still be enough votes for the resolution to pass.
When asked by Drop Site reporter Lily Franks on Thursday whether there were enough votes to pass the resolution, Meeks insisted, "We can't win the vote."
"When you see me put the bill on the floor, that means we're going to win," Meeks said sharply. "I know how to count. I know how to do my job."
When Franks pointed out that enough Republicans appeared to be on board, Meeks—continuing to interrupt—told her to "go find out" herself if there were enough votes.
"If only there were some mechanism on the House floor to find out how somebody might vote," Grim quipped in response.
The Democratic spokesperson could not be reached for comment when asked by Common Dreams whether Meeks was now planning to push for a resolution vote before the recess, given that some Democrats have returned to Washington.
Nathan Thompson, a senior policy adviser for Just Foreign Policy, argues that even if Democrats do not have the votes to pass the resolution now, there is no reason not to bring it to a vote.
"Forcing a vote will make House Republicans own an increasingly likely ground invasion," he said in a letter sent to House Democrats on Thursday morning, which was shared with Common Dreams. "Even a vote that falls short will be painful for House Republicans and put real pressure on the Trump administration."
"The attendance excuse doesn't hold," he said. "Members can return by tomorrow to vote, and Republicans aren't at full strength either... An unfortunate scheduling error should not prevent Congress from weighing in at a critical moment in history."
Calls for a war powers resolution on Capitol Hill continued to grow after reports that the Trump administration is mulling several potential ground operations in Iran, potentially as early as Friday.
Axios reported on Thursday that the Pentagon is considering "invading or blockading" Kharg Island, Iran’s primary oil export hub—and sending American forces “deep inside the interior of Iran” in an effort to seize the country’s enriched uranium.
The concerns about the repercussions of a prolonged war—even for just another two weeks—are broadly shared. Speaking on MS NOW on Thursday, former Defense Secretary and CIA Director Leon Panetta warned that serious dangers exist that a short extension of the war could lead to a much more intractable situation.
"If we continue the war," Panetta said, "if we go another 16 days of war and we incur casualties, or they incur serious casualties, then the likelihood is that you're planting the seeds for a more permanent war."
As the risk of a more protracted conflict was magnified on Wednesday, Trump insisted that the US is not at war at all, but is simply waging a "military operation" against Iran.
This has heightened the urgency among many Democrats on Capitol Hill, including Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).
"If it looks like a war, sounds like a war, and costs like a war… It’s probably a war," the former chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus wrote on social media Thursday. "Trump is admitting to violating the Constitution. No amount of doublespeak can change that."
"Congress must vote on another war powers resolution," she added.
Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) told Axios that there was "absolutely" frustration among progressives that Democrats were planning to punt the vote to next month.
Meanwhile, critics are increasingly raising suspicion that Meeks—whom The Lever noted received more than $2.2 million from pro-Israel lobbying groups according to the watchdog group TrackAIPAC—is intentionally dragging out the vote.
A prolonged war and the resulting economic turmoil are brutally unpopular, including among Republicans, and the theory goes that Democrats may seek to let it become an albatross around their opponents' necks in this fall's midterms.
Independent journalist Aída Chávez has emphasized that Meeks held up the previous war powers vote by overinflating the number of Democrats likely to defect, and may have attempted to do so again.
But with Democratic stragglers on board and more Republicans "starting to break," Chávez said: "Democratic leadership can’t keep hiding behind process.
"Bring the Iran war powers resolution to the floor right now," she said.
Thompson of Just Foreign Policy warned Democrats that "failing to force a vote will be noticed and covered in the media," and that "the Democratic base is watching and expects their party to put up a real fight."
"Even if the vote falls short by a couple votes, the members who voted yes will have a powerful record to champion to their constituents," he said. "The members who voted no will have a very difficult record to explain if troops end up being killed and injured on the ground in Iran."
Keep Reading
Show Less
From NY Courthouse to Venezuela, Protesters Demand Immediate Release of Maduro and Cilia Flores
"We hope that in the United States, if justice truly exists, a trial will be held that will lead to President Maduro’s freedom," said one supporter of the Venezuelan leader.
Mar 26, 2026
Supporters of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro gathered in both New York and the Venezuelan capital of Caracas on Thursday to demand his release.
Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were abducted by the US military in January and brought to the US to face narco-terrorism, drug trafficking, and weapons charges. The couple have pleaded not guilty to all charges.
As reported by The Associated Press, many demonstrators picketed outside a federal courthouse in Manhattan ahead of a scheduled status hearing for Maduro and Flores, and called for all charges against them to be dropped. A group of counterprotesters, meanwhile, demonstrated in support of the couple's prosecution.
"In a noisy scene, protesters and supporters chanted, blew horns, and beat drums and cowbells," reported the AP. "Among the anti-Maduro contingent, one person waved a sign reading 'Maduro rot in prison.' On the other side of a metal barrier, people held signs reading 'Free President Maduro.'"
Hundreds of demonstrators also gathered in Caracas for a government-sponsored rally demanding Maduro and Flores' return to Venezuela, which has been governed in his absence by acting President Delcy Rodríguez.
One attendee at the demonstration, an 80-year-old retiree named Eduardo Cubillan, told the AP that he hoped for a speedy acquittal of the deposed Venezuelan leader.
"We hope that in the United States, if justice truly exists, a trial will be held that will lead to President Maduro’s freedom," Cubillan said, "because this kidnapping violated international legal principles, and we want justice to be served."
In a social media message, the Embassy of Venezuela to Trinidad and Tobago also expressed solidarity with Maduro and Flores.
"Today, court day, we demand with strength and determination, the immediate release of Venezuela President Nicolás Maduro and his wife and MP Cilia Flores," the embassy wrote.
During Thursday's court hearing, reported ABC News, Judge Alvin Hellerstein said that he would not dismiss the charges against Maduro and Flores, although he "appeared to wrestle with how to assure Maduro had access to sufficient counsel."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Exclusion With a New Name': IOC Bans Trans Women, Those With Sex Differences From Olympics
The genetic testing put forward by the committee "fuels suspicion, invites public scrutiny, and puts already vulnerable athletes at risk," said one advocate.
Mar 26, 2026
A new policy unveiled Thursday by the International Olympic Committee was presented as a ban on transgender athletes from participating in women's sports—but considering just one transgender woman has participated in the international games since they have been eligible to, critics said the new rules would likely have a greater impact on cisgender women with natural variations in hormones, who have already faced degrading treatment and exclusion in the sports community for years.
IOC president Kirsty Coventry, who campaigned to lead the organization with calls to "protect" women's sports in the Olympics, said that starting with the 2028 Summer Games in Los Angeles, athletes will be required to take a one-time genetics test with the screening using a cheek swab, blood test, or saliva sample.
"Eligibility for any female category event at the Olympic Games or any other IOC event, including individual and team sports, is now limited to biological females," said Coventry, adding that the new policy “is based on science and has been led by medical experts."
The IOC worked with experts to determine how to approach the issue of transgender women in sports, which in recent years has become the subject of talking points for the Republican Party in the US and other right-wing leaders. President Donald Trump signed an executive order last year barring transgender women from competing on women's college sports teams.
The committee conducted a review not just of transgender athletes but of those who have differences in sexual development (DSD), such as being intersex, and compete in women's sports. The review has not been publicly released, but the IOC said it found athletes born with male sexual markers had physical advantages even if they were receiving treatment to reduce testosterone.
The IOC had previously allowed transgender athletes to participate in the Olympic Games if they were reducing their testosterone levels. In 2021, a weight lifter from New Zealand, Laurel Hubbard, became the first transgender women to compete at the Olympics after transitioning.
Boxers including Lin Yu-Ting of Taiwan and Imane Khelif of Algeria have been subject to scrutiny and genetic testing regarding their sex; Lin was recently cleared to participate in World Boxing events in the female category. Both competed in the 2024 Olympics in Paris and won gold medals.
Khelif has said she naturally has the SRY gene that the IOC's screening would test for, and that she has naturally high levels of testosterone.
Under the IOC ruling, athletes who do not have the typical female XX sex chromosomes and have DSD will also be banned from competing. People with DSD are not always aware of their status.
South African runner Caster Semenya, who has a rare genetic trait giving her elevated levels of testosterone, was subjected to genetic testing after her fellow competitors complained about her appearance when she won a gold medal in a world championship in 2009.
Genetic screening for Olympic athletes "is not progress—it is walking backward," she told The New York Times. "This is just exclusion with a new name.”
Payoshni Mitra, executive director of the advocacy group Humans of Sport, told the Times that the new policy simply "polices women’s bodies."
“It fuels suspicion, invites public scrutiny, and puts already vulnerable athletes at risk," she said.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular