On the Friday afternoon before Labor Day, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), the federal investigative and prosecutorial agency that oversees prohibited personnel practices, proposed new rules that would change how whistleblower lawsuits are handled by the federal government. The proposed rules would empower whistleblowers and enable their claims to become public before any investigation is concluded. Notably, one change would require that OSC place on its website the existence of allegations of censorship or efforts to distort, misrepresent, or suppress information. Currently, such information would not be made public without a finished investigation with OSC’s findings.
The proposed rules sound reasonable enough. After all, an increase in transparency, especially when things like censorship are involved, is generally a positive step forward. But the story doesn’t end there. We must look at these changes in the context of several other efforts in recent months apparently intended to “Trump-proof” the federal government.
Restricting Authority with ‘Scientific Integrity’ Policy
For instance, the Biden-Harris administration has quietly been promulgating changes to the “scientific integrity” policies of several agencies. These policies were originally intended to ensure that data, studies, and government decision-making are evaluated objectively and transparently. Under this administration, however, they have become politicized and seemingly erected to prevent future agency leadership from exercising lawful discretion.
This effort is often portrayed as protecting objective, well-meaning civil servants and scientists from improper interference. But the result would be to limit presidential appointees’ constitutionally given ability to properly supervise and exercise agency authority.
Agencies
