Harvard Political Review (Arjun Bhattarai): Tell us a little bit about the National Whistleblower Center, which you lead.
Siri Nelson: The National Whistleblower Center is the only whistleblower organization that operates worldwide and protects and advocates for whistleblowers as our sole mission. We started in the United States, but we have been working globally for the past few years. Right now, our focus is on making sure that whistleblowers who go to the Securities and Exchange Commission are protected, no matter how they communicate with the Commission and what they report.
HPR: Thank you so much for that overview. NWC began in 1988, which sounds relatively recent given the impact of whistleblowing in general. What was the condition of whistleblowing before and since NWC’s founding?
Nelson: That’s a great question. One of the things we’re the proudest about here at NWC is the fact that we’ve been able to instigate a culture shift. When the National Whistleblower Center was founded, whistleblowers were referred to as rats and snitches. They were shunned and looked down upon.
Remnants of this still exist, but due to our advocacy and resultant progress in Congress, with the Dodd-Frank Act and other whistleblower protections, we have seen the culture change. Whistleblowers are now viewed as courageous, heroic, warriors for justice and speakers of truth.
HPR: There has also been a significant change in the way that information is conveyed since 1988. How has this evolving technological landscape impacted the work of the NWC and whistleblowers broadly?
Nelson: Digital developments radically impacted our work, especially as we’ve had the opportunity to interact with people around the world. They have access to the Internet, they can communicate with us, they can visit our website and they can make reports to the U.S. government. So we are able to reach a much larger group of people than we were able to reach in 1988. We’ve also been better able to empower the public, with citizens connecting with their legislators over email and social media about whistleblower issues in a way that is much easier and much more seamless than going door to door and telling people to write a letter to their congressperson.
HPR: Whistleblowing, as you know, is often considered a bit risky. In your own professional experience, have there been any incidents where that risk has felt like a deterrent or discouragement?
Nelson: I’m definitely aware of the personal risk, but I also know that the risks I face pale in comparison to the risks that the average whistleblower faces. For instance, I don’t lose my job for speaking up — I actually get promoted the more I speak up. The more I speak up, the more people donate, the more my board loves me, and the more interviews like this I get to do. But a whistleblower in the workplace gets attacked for thinking critically and gets attacked for speaking up. Retaliation is a persistent issue.
So whenever I think about the idea of me being at risk, I also think about the people that I fight for and the risks that they have the courage to take on every day.
For a few specific examples, I write quite actively about Elon Musk’s hypocrisy and attacks on whistleblowers. I do support Tesla whistleblowers very vocally. Recently we took a very strong stance against Russian oligarchs. We also issued a condemnation of the Netherlands for imprisoning a person who recently blew the whistle on Swiss currency manipulation. So we do hit as big as we can, and as hard as we can. Do I also fear that one day, someone might take some action against me? Yes, of course. But at the same time, as I said, every day, I think about the people who take much larger personal risks when blowing the whistle: I’m fighting for them.
HPR: Despite the risk, there seems to be a bipartisan or widespread understanding that whistleblowing is essential for democracy as well as for exposing fraud and other problems. Even so, whistleblowing still lacks legal support. Why do you think that is?
Nelson: Interestingly, Whistleblower Network News conducted a Marist poll of the American public and found that the majority of Americans, regardless of party affiliation, race, gender, age, or income, support whistleblower protections and think whistleblower protection should be a priority for Congress. That said, it’s an issue that can be so complex that it falls by the wayside, even though it’s so widely supported, due to that complexity. Additionally, politicians flip between wanting to elevate either whistleblower protections or whistleblower stigmas depending on whom the whistle is being blown [against], so it’s a constantly changing subject area.
HPR: There are a number of legal frameworks that corporations and governments use to keep whistleblowers silent or penalize them for speaking out: Non-disclosure agreements are just one example. To what extent do you think the legal system is set up to keep the indiscretions of the powerful from reaching daylight?
Nelson: Non-disclosure agreements are such an important thing to point out as a legal tool that is used against whistleblowers because they and other sorts of privacy protections, like defamation, can be weaponized against whistleblowers who have access to, for example, computer files or personal information.
Are the laws designed to support corporations? We all know the answer to that. Especially because of corporate lobbying against whistleblower provisions. For example, we’ve seen the False Claims Act amendments that Senator Chuck Grassley introduced, I think, for the first time in 2020 have been reintroduced in 2021 and I think will be reintroduced again, which would empower whistleblowers to reclaim more money from the corporations that are defrauding the government. But for some reason, there’s no government support, likely because it’s so complicated, and the corporations come in and try to explain it in their own way. What they’re really doing, though, is manipulating the law against whistleblowers, and that’s when we see enforcement of NDAs and forced arbitration.
It’s an area where we definitely want to see change, but we also want the public to know more as well because many people, for example, sign contracts that have illegal non-disclosure agreements in them, but they don’t realize it, so they don’t even talk to a lawyer because they’re afraid that talking to a lawyer will violate their NDA. The fact is that you can talk to a lawyer any time you want: That’s your right. But when the government, the SEC, for instance, doesn’t crack down on these illicit NDAs, it sends a signal to corporations that they can silence their employees without being punished.
HPR: You also said that whistleblowing can range from the very micro level to more macro levels. Many of our readers generally understand whistleblowing as it’s related to more macro events because that’s what we hear on the news. To contrast this, what are some examples of more micro whistleblowing?
Nelson: What’s interesting about whistleblowing that your question highlights is that there’s a legal definition of whistleblowing and then a social definition. The legal definition of whistleblowing is meeting certain requirements to fit into a legal whistleblower program; that’s where you get those macro-level stories, where the person reports to the government and the government takes action and then the whistleblower gets a reward.
An example of micro whistleblowing would be, for instance, if you’re at your university, and you see your professor regularly engaging in plagiarism. If you report it to the academic integrity department in your school, that’s blowing the whistle. And it’s something that you can face retaliation for because, if your professor finds out, they can ostracize you, dock your grade, or something else. There’s not going to be a big news story about it; there aren’t going to be any government protections. But it still has the potential to make a difference, and many people still don’t like it.
HPR: We also talked about how tech advancements have facilitated whistleblowing. On the flip side, though, has technological innovation had the opposite effect or been used by companies to discourage whistleblowing or create more risk for whistleblowers?
Nelson: Yes, absolutely. In addition to its role as a market for information and communication, the internet has made it easier for employers to subject employees and prospective whistleblowers to vigorous surveillance. It’s actually become so horrible that, sometimes, whistleblowers will get a different phone, use a made-up email address, or send encrypted messages to contact whistleblower attorneys or organizations like the NWC. Having to go through those motions has a chilling effect and scares people from coming forward or even consuming content, or reading articles, that they suspect may have whistleblower information.
HPR: As a final thought, is there anything else you’d like to share with our readers, or are there any NWC projects that you’re really excited about?
Nelson: The one thing I want to share with HPR readers is that we need whistleblower attorneys. We need whistleblower advocates. So when you’re thinking about your career, consider this as a career. You can actually make a pretty good living, given the statutory legal fees that are available to whistleblower attorneys. So definitely pursue that path. It’s a very, very rewarding professional path to follow.
Regarding projects I’m excited about, we’ve been engaging more with global whistleblowers. Whistleblowing is essential to human rights initiatives, and NWC is also really passionate about transnational enforcement and the ways in which U.S. laws can be used to advance human rights abroad. For example, in countries where there aren’t freedom of speech protections. whistleblowers can still report to U.S. programs anonymously and confidentially and speak up about the things that they’re not allowed to speak up about at home.
We’re also going to be working a lot more on non-disclosure agreements in the tech industry. We’ll keep going after billionaires who don’t want to follow the rules, bringing people forward, and encouraging them and supporting them.
We also just filed an amicus brief that I’m excited about for an IRS whistleblower who was unfortunately denied every ward. We’ll also be presenting at The Hague. There’s just so much going on and we hope you all will be a part of the work. We love hiring people who are freshly graduated and passionate about anti-corruption, accountability, transparency, and our environment.
HPR: Thank you so much for your time.
Correction 11/5/2022
The original version of this piece contained a misspelling of “Marist” and has been edited to reflect the correct spelling.
