The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently reviewed the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) processes for handling FBI whistleblower retaliation complaints. This report reveals critical areas for improvement, including lengthy delays in updating regulations, inconsistent application of statutory protections, and a lack of clarity regarding recent legal provisions. Whistleblowers play a pivotal role in maintaining transparency and accountability within federal agencies, yet their efforts often place them at risk of retaliation. In the FBI’s case, federal employees are protected from retaliation under specialized statutes separate from the general Civil Service Reform Act. Over the years, Congress and GAO have aimed to enhance these protections to ensure FBI employees can safely report wrongdoing without fear of retaliation. Despite DOJ’s progress, this latest review reveals significant obstacles that prevent these goals from being fully realized.

One of the central findings in the GAO report is the lengthy delay in updating regulations to reflect the FBI Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2016. While Congress passed this law to extend protection to FBI employees, DOJ took seven years to finalize regulations consistent with the statute. This delay meant that from 2016 to 2024, some FBI whistleblowers faced confusion and uncertainty about where they could report misconduct and whether they were protected in doing so. In particular, GAO found instances where employees experienced difficulties making disclosures to their supervisors. DOJ did make efforts to update guidance and continued to process complaints according to the law, but the regulatory gap still led to confusion and left some employees uncertain of their rights.

This challenge in promptly updating regulations was not solely attributed to bureaucratic inertia. The DOJ’s regulatory process for handling these complex rules involves coordination between multiple internal offices, as well as external oversight from the Office of Management and Budget. Without a clear timeline and a dedicated office to oversee the process, DOJ’s efforts were hampered by delays, shifts in priorities, and coordination challenges. This lack of clear responsibility within DOJ’s components meant that when statutory changes were made, as in the case of the 2016 Act, they were not effectively incorporated into the DOJ’s regulatory framework in a timely manner. By establishing dedicated oversight and setting timelines for each stage of rulemaking, DOJ could expedite future regulatory updates, ensuring that FBI whistleblower protections are current and accessible.

Another significant concern raised by GAO involves the timeliness of DOJ’s response to whistleblower complaints. Despite DOJ settling more complaints in recent years, it still fails to meet critical timelines in many cases, notably the requirement to acknowledge receipt of a complaint within 15 days. While improvements have been made, including establishing timeliness metrics and centralized responsibility for acknowledging complaints, GAO found that DOJ’s Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility were still unable to consistently meet this 15-day requirement. This delay often stems from a high volume of cases and challenges in routing complaints to the appropriate office. While DOJ has taken steps to address some of these issues, such as implementing timeliness metrics and clarifying roles within its offices, there remains a need for a more efficient, streamlined approach to intake and processing.

The 2023 amendments to FBI whistleblower rights added further complexity to DOJ’s processes. These amendments, part of the National Defense Authorization Act, granted FBI whistleblowers additional rights to seek corrective action from the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). However, these provisions contained ambiguities that created challenges for DOJ in implementing them. The statute did not clearly specify when determinations or corrective actions are considered final and appealable, nor did it clarify when the 180-day period begins, after which an employee can directly appeal to the MSPB. This lack of clarity led to inconsistent interpretations within DOJ, with some components interpreting the statute as granting appeal rights at different stages of the complaint process.

The statutory ambiguities not only led to confusion within DOJ but also impacted the rights of FBI whistleblowers. Without clear guidance, employees may struggle to understand when and how they can appeal a DOJ decision, leaving them vulnerable to delays and potential errors in processing their cases. Although DOJ has updated its publicly available policies to reference the new appeal rights, this reference alone does not provide the necessary clarity on the specific procedures and timelines for exercising these rights. DOJ has indicated that resolving these ambiguities may require additional rulemaking by the MSPB or Congressional action to clarify the statute. Until then, DOJ is limited in the guidance it can provide to whistleblowers regarding their MSPB appeal rights.

The GAO report underscores the need for Congress to consider statutory amendments that clarify when DOJ determinations and corrective actions are final and establish clear starting points for the 180-day appeal period. These amendments would enable DOJ to provide clear and consistent information to FBI whistleblowers, ensuring that they fully understand and can exercise their rights under the new provisions. By addressing these issues, Congress and DOJ can create a more transparent and predictable process for FBI whistleblowers seeking protection from retaliation, ultimately fostering a safer and more accountable work environment within the FBI.

This blog post is for informational purposes only. It is not guaranteed to be accurate, and it does not constitute legal advice.