There’s a theory floating around the Internet that claims the intelligence community secretly eliminated a whistleblowing requirement just before the Ukraine scandal broke.
The idea is that deep state operatives believed President Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky could damage his presidency, so they changed the rules to make it easier for a whistleblower to come forward by eliminating the legal requirement for first-hand knowledge.
But this theory is just that — a theory, nothing more. It should be treated as such.
The Federalist’s Sean Davis was the first to peddle this theory, claiming in an article that “between May 2018 and August 2019,” the intelligence community created a “brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form” that “no longer requires potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to Congress to have direct, firsthand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing that they are reporting.”
MAGA world and even Trump himself latched onto this as proof of yet another coup. “WHO CHANGED THE LONG STANDING WHISTLEBLOWER RULES JUST BEFORE SUBMITTAL OF THE FAKE WHISTLEBLOWER REPORT? DRAIN THE SWAMP!” Trump tweeted.
But the whole thing is false. The intelligence community did indeed revise its whistleblower submission form in August, but it did not change the rules to allow secondhand information because, as the Office of the Inspector General explained, there was never a firsthand requirement in the first place.
Moreover, according to the inspector general, the Ukraine whistleblower used the old form on Aug. 12, 2019. It was the same form that the inspector general had in place since May 2018.
“Although the form requests information about whether the Complainant possesses firsthand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute. In fact, by law the Complainant — or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees — need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern,” the inspector general said.
Under current law, then, a whistleblower must meet three requirements:
- He or she must be an “employee of an element of the intelligence community” or directly affiliated with the intelligence community;
- He or she must demonstrate “urgent concern,” which the law defines as “a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity;”
- And the inspector general must then determine whether the whistleblower’s information and “urgent concern” is “credible.” It does this by weighing first-hand knowledge, second-hand knowledge, and the relevant information.
Because the whistleblower had dozens of sources whose stories lined up, the inspector general deemed the complaint as an “urgent concern” that was indeed “credible.” And so far, they were correct. The whistleblower’s complaint detailing Trump’s conversation with Zelensky was accurate.
The secondhand knowledge theory is meant to discredit the whistleblower and portray him or her as a political operative with political motivations. And for all we know, he or she could be. But that doesn’t mean the inspector general changed the rules.
