Opinion: Trump attacks endanger whistleblower protections
President Trump’s reaction to the anonymous whistleblower whose revelations put in motion the machinery of impeachment in Congress reflects the worst of his political instincts.
Shoot the messenger (without really disputing what he or she revealed). Surmise dark motives (again, ignoring the substance of the claims). Threaten crippling legal action (even when taking such action is baseless). And, most important, work diligently to make the supposed antagonist’s life miserable.
Less remarked upon, however, is that Trump’s response comes straight from the playbook of unscrupulous employers across America accused by their employees of fraud or other misconduct. As lawyers who have spent decades representing whistleblowers who expose corporate fraud, we know the ins and outs of navigating the often severe—and unfortunately predictable—retaliation that befalls a person who tells secrets that powerful interests are dead-set to keep.
Employers respond to whistleblowers like the immune system responds to disease: Both must be expelled from the body, supposedly to make it healthy. And so the spotlight turns on the whistleblower, rather than the misconduct he or she exposed. The purpose is to discredit, isolate and professionally assassinate the person.
Was the person a star performer climbing in the organization’s ranks? Take away their responsibilities and neuter their ability to excel. Does the person have a future in the industry? Blackball them to ensure they don’t. Does the person lean on co-workers for support? Make sure everyone understands the whistleblower is holding kryptonite and that consorting with him or her is professional suicide.
While predictable, what’s so unfortunate about this reflexive autoimmune response is that it’s terrible for any organization. In the case of corporations, new academic research shows that whistleblowers are actually good for a company’s bottom line. Somewhat counterintuitively, companies with more robust internal whistleblowing systems that get more complaints are healthier than those that don’t.
Such companies are sued less frequently. And when they are sued, they have considerably less liability than companies where employees can’t report in real time what is going wrong. The reality is that whistleblowers are the good bacteria that makes a body stronger. Enlightened corporate leaders understand that, far from needing to be expelled, whistleblowers must be encouraged.
Trump’s reaction to the intelligence whistleblower, on the other hand, mirrors the very behavior that has been proven to weaken corporations in similar situations. While the country reels, Trump and his henchmen are calling for the whistleblower’s head. Trump dubbed the whistleblower “almost a spy” and suggested the person is guilty of “treason.” Trump mused to a private audience that the government should “handle” the whistleblower like it did “in the old days”—which, in the President’s mafioso vernacular, means execution.
President Trump’s vicious smearing of the anonymous whistleblower is outrageous and unethical. And his persistent demand to reveal the whistleblower’s identity violates the laws Trump swore to faithfully execute upon taking office. It also jeopardizes the whistleblower’s safety.
Just as critically, Trump’s attacks give official sanction on a national level to the old-school way of treating whistleblowers. Reverting to the tired tropes that vilify whistleblowers as “snitches” or “rats” threatens to set back the growing recognition that whistleblowers help organizations far more than they hurt them. As Trump’s economy falters, that’s not something American businesses can afford.
Mary Inman and Ari Yampolsky are attorneys specializing in the representation of whistleblowers. Both work for the Constantine Cannon law firm, Inman in London, Yampolsky in San Francisco.