The House Government Reform Committee held an extraordinary hearing yesterday on the vulnerabilities of national security whistleblowers who challenge what they see as agency misconduct.
“Breaking bureaucratic ranks to speak unpleasant and unwelcome truths takes courage and risks invoking the wrath of those with the power and motive to shoot the messenger,” said Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT), who chaired the hearing.
In an unusual move, Chairman Shays gave pride of place to several whistleblowers who testified in the first panel of the hearing, while agency representatives waited to testify in the third panel.
All of the prepared testimony may be found here.
Today, “there are no meaningful protections for [national security] whistleblowers,” wrote former FBI linguist Sibel Edmonds in response to a New York Times op-ed last week by DCIA Porter Goss.
See “Porter Goss’ Op-ed: ‘Ignotum per Ignotius’!” by Sibel Edmonds, February 11.
“Ignotum per ignotius” is a Latin expression referring to an explanation which is harder to understand than that which it is meant to explain.
It is in the interests of the United States to appropriately protect information that needs to be protected while maintaining our participation in new discoveries to maintain our competitive advantage.
The question is not whether the capital exists (it does!), nor whether energy solutions are available (they are!), but whether we can align energy finance quickly enough to channel the right types of capital where and when it’s needed most.
Our analysis of federal AI governance across administrations shows that divergent compliance procedures and uneven institutional capacity challenge the government’s ability to deploy AI in ways that uphold public trust.
From California to New Jersey, wildfires are taking a toll—costing the United States up to $424 billion annually and displacing tens of thousands of people. Congress needs solutions.