ICYMI: Nonpartisan Whistleblower Advocacy Group Defends Grassley’s Arctic Frost Whistleblowers

ICYMI: Nonpartisan Whistleblower Advocacy Group Defends Grassley's Arctic Frost Whistleblowers

"The risks of retaliation faced by whistleblowers should never be undermined or doubted."

BUTLER COUNTY, IOWA - The Government Accountability Project (GAP), a nonpartisan whistleblower protection and advocacy organization, issued a statement defending whistleblowers' legal right to release Arctic Frost records to U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), including grand jury materials.

GAP clarified that whistleblowers' right to provide information to Congress is "unequivocally protected" and warned "branding [the whistleblowers'] disclosure as misconduct could indeed be an invitation to retaliation and create a chilling effect that threatens essential congressional oversight of this and every other Administration."

In a speech on the Senate floor, Grassley condemned recent left-wing media efforts to intimidate, smear and discredit his Arctic Frost whistleblowers.

Read GAP's full statement HERE and below.

Whistleblower Retaliation Should Never be Undermined
Government Accountability Project
February 17, 2026

Recently, some commentators have suggested that whistleblowers acted illegally by disclosing grand jury information to Senator Chuck Grassley and the Senate Judiciary Committee. The evidence they shared was reportedly relevant to allegations that Special Counsel Jack Smith had engaged in surveillance of eight Congressional offices. The claim of illegality relies on Justice Department memoranda concluding that disclosures about prosecutions "are not likely to be protected" by the Whistleblower Protection Act because they implicate grand jury secrecy laws. In effect, the argument suggests that these whistleblowers are legally subject to termination or even criminal prosecution.

As an organization dedicated to protecting lawful whistleblowers, we have to state that the conclusion is incorrect.

First, federal employees do not need the Whistleblower Protection Act to communicate lawfully with Congress. Since the Lloyd-La Follette Act of 1912, their right to furnish information directly to Congress has been unequivocally protected. The law states:

The right of employees, individually or collectively, to petition Congress or a Member of Congress, or to furnish information to either House of Congress, or to a committee or a member thereof, may not be interfered with or denied.

The only exception concerns classified information, for which Congress created limited, specific procedures under the Intelligence Whistleblower Protection Act.

Second, if supported by a reasonable belief, such communications are independently protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act. That statute shields lawful disclosures, including public disclosures, unless the information is classified or specifically prohibited from release by statute. In MacLean v. Department of Homeland Security, 574 U.S. 383 (2015), the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that restrictions on whistleblowing must be expressly stated by Congress in statute; they cannot be delegated broadly to other government entities. Whistleblowers are entitled to clear notice of any limitations. With respect to grand jury materials, Congress delegated rulemaking authority to the Supreme Court, but court rules do not override statutory whistleblower free speech protections.

The right to communicate freely with Congress is essential to effective oversight of Executive branch abuses of power. It is foundational for constitutional checks and balances. For decades, Congress has relied on whistleblowers to expose coverups and misconduct by providing evidence that may not be available to the public. Protecting this channel is critical to ensuring that federal employees understand they have a lawful alternative to silence.

Government Accountability Project does not take a position on the facts of alleged Biden administration misconduct, because we have not reviewed the evidence, but we know the law. If their concerns were supported by a reasonable belief, these whistleblowers had every right to share the evidence with Congress. This is important because branding their disclosure as misconduct could indeed be an invitation to retaliation and create a chilling effect that threatens essential congressional oversight of this and every other Administration.

Government Accountability Project affirms what we have stood by for nearly 50 years now: the risks of retaliation faced by whistleblowers should never be undermined or doubted. Under every administration, whistleblowers have faced daunting retaliation for speaking truth to power, and for releasing legally valuable information in the name of transparency and to combat fraud, waste and abuse.

-30-

• Print
• Email
• Like
• Tweet