[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 97 (Tuesday, June 9, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2682-S2683]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Whistleblowers

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I come here to speak about one of 
my favorite topics: protecting patriotic people that we call 
whistleblowers, people whose goal is, in government, to make sure that 
laws are faithfully enforced and money spent according to the way it 
should be, and sometimes these whistleblowers pay a price for doing 
that, even losing their job and ruining themselves professionally.
  I have conducted longstanding oversight to ensure the Federal 
Government complies with whistleblower protection laws, and some of 
those laws I have gotten on the books.
  Unfortunately, elements of the Federal Government--whether Republican 
or Democrat--have made efforts to silence whistleblowers through 
illegal nondisclosure agreements.
  Let's not forget that in addition to Federal statute, a fundamental 
precept of whistleblowing is the First Amendment, freedom of speech. 
That is why I spearheaded a very successful effort to get what is 
called anti-gag provisions enacted in the law. I worked a very long 
time to make anti-gag provisions law. The anti-gag provisions require 
all Federal Agency nondisclosure policy forms and agreements to notify 
employees of their right to blow the whistle to Congress, to inspectors 
general, and to the Office of Special Counsel.
  The failure to comply with the law isn't only a chilling effect that 
discourages whistleblowers, it is also illegal.
  For decades, my oversight efforts have successfully led Federal 
Agencies bringing their unlawful nondisclosure and similar agreements 
into compliance. And I will tell you this: It is amazing that after all 
these years, the Federal Government still--still--has problems with 
compliance with my anti-gag legislation.
  That is why Congress must continue to do constant oversight.

[[Page S2683]]

  So this is what brings me to the floor today. On May 26, this year, 
the Office of Personnel Management--OPM for short--published a notice 
with requests for comment in the Federal Register. That notice 
announced that OPM created a draft nondisclosure agreement form for use 
by Federal Agencies for both new and existing employees.
  According to the Office of Personnel Management, this governmentwide 
nondisclosure agreement is needed to protect confidential information 
from unauthorized disclosure. In other words, this new proposed 
regulation is supposed to stop what we call leaks in this town. Office 
of Personnel Management provided examples of recent leaks to the media 
about law enforcement and military operations that put the lives of our 
Federal officers and military members at risk.
  It is truly unacceptable when the unauthorized disclosure of 
information puts the lives of law enforcement and military personnel at 
risk. Full stop.
  It is important to note the distinction between leaks and 
whistleblowers. Legally protected whistleblower disclosures are not 
leaks. Legally protected whistleblower disclosures aren't unauthorized 
disclosures. It can be a fact-specific analysis to determine which side 
of the line a disclosure falls on. But during that analysis, the 
benefit must be given to the patriotic whistleblower.
  Now, turning to the text of the Office of Personnel Management draft 
disclosure form, it works this way: It contains an anti-gag provision 
but doesn't include the full text as required by law. So it should have 
the full text of the law that got passed. It fails, also, to include 
that disclosures to the Office of Special Counsel are allowed. And that 
is in the law as well.
  Further, the anti-gag provisions are at the very beginning of the 
form rather than at the end like other government nondisclosure 
agreements, where people that are signing the agreement know what their 
rights are. As a general matter, I am concerned about the use of 
nondisclosure agreements because they can chill whistleblowers, even if 
that is not the intent of the nondisclosure agreement.
  I demand that the anti-gag provisions be put at the end, where 
employees sign. At the end will provide the employee with the mental 
assurance that they are not giving up their whistleblower rights.
  Again, the balance must always be on the benefit of the whistleblower 
because we shouldn't be doing anything in this government to discourage 
honest whistleblowing.
  As I continue to analyze the draft rule this month, 2026, I wrote to 
the Office of Personnel Management Director making clear that they need 
to immediately fix these preliminary issues, have the nondisclosure 
just above the signature, mention the Office of Special Counsel, and 
also put the entire language of the legislation in the document.
  If the draft nondisclosure form is implemented, Congress, of course, 
should follow up with oversight to ensure that it is not used 
inappropriately.
  And this Senator intends to do that oversight for sure.