The Urgent Case for the AI Whistleblower Protections: Congress Must Pass the AI Whistleblower Protection Act

Congress must pass the AI Whistleblower Protection Act, a best-practices whistleblower bill that specifically addresses AI employees.

Without information from whistleblowers, the U.S. government’s ability to police and regulate this newly developing technology is curtailed, risking an increase in the technology’s risks to public health, safety, national security, and other concerns. Insiders must be able to disclose potential violations safely, freely, and appropriately to law enforcement and regulatory authorities.

Like powerful developing sectors preceding it, insiders in the Artificial Intelligence industry do not have explicit access to safeguards for reporting until legislation is passed, as the misconduct they seek to report may not be considered illegal under existing law. At present, the regulation of AI is far behind technological advancement.

What is the AI Whistleblower Protection Act?

Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA) introduced the bipartisan AI Whistleblower Protection Act (AIWPA) in May 2025 to protect individuals who disclose information regarding potential artificial intelligence security vulnerabilities or violations.

This bill comes at a critical moment – with a wave of deregulation potentially coming at the state and federal levels, whistleblower protections may become even more crucial in holding the AI industry accountable.

Covered disclosures outlined in the bill are “AI security vulnerability” and “AI violation.”

The term “AI security vulnerability” refers to any security breach or vulnerability that could enable the unauthorized acquisition of the technology being developed at a company by individuals or foreign entities through theft or other illicit means.
The term “AI violation” in the bill means any breach of federal law occurring during or related to the development, deployment, or use of artificial intelligence, or any inadequate response to a concrete and specific risk that the development, deployment, or use of artificial intelligence may pose to public safety, public health, or national security.

The bill provides coverage for information brought forward regarding an AI security vulnerability or violation, and includes any conduct that the covered individual reasonably believes to constitute an AI security vulnerability or AI violation.

All whistleblower retaliation laws include this precedent, where the whistleblower is not required to prove the reported violation as long as they believe in good faith that what is occurring could result in vulnerabilities or violations of law.

The scope of who a disclosure can be made to under the anti-retaliation protections is broad. Whistleblowers are permitted to report to most federal law enforcement or regulatory agencies, Attorneys General, and Congress.

What are the Protections Afforded by the Act?

Coverage and Anti-Retaliation Protections

The bill provides protections for individuals’ testimony in administrative and judicial proceedings and covers aiding in government investigations. It contains anti-retaliation protections that prohibit employers from discharging, demoting, suspending, threatening, blacklisting, or harassing any covered individuals related to their protected activity.

The bill covers individuals who make disclosures internally via existing company compliance programs or to their supervisors. The protections for those who disclose to a person with supervisory authority over them or someone with the authority to investigate, discover, or terminate the misconduct, if executed properly, would help create a stronger risk management culture within the organization, countering the current chilling effect on internal reporting.

Legal Recourse and Remedies for Whistleblowers

AI whistleblowers who experience retribution would gain the ability to submit grievances to the Labor Department and pursue remedies through federal courts, including job restoration, twice the amount of back wages owed, and compensation for damages. The legislation also explicitly states that these protections for AI whistleblowers cannot be surrendered through employment contracts or forced arbitration clauses.

Complaint Filing and Adjudication Process

The law follows the standard procedures set forth in whistleblower law, such as the Sarbanes Oxley, Taxpayer First, and auto safety laws, by requiring an initial complaint to be filed with the Department of Labor, which has the authority to fully adjudicate the claims and protect the whistleblower. Critically, it permits the whistleblower after 180 days to file a complaint directly in federal court seeking full relief available from courts and present their case to a jury of peers. This protects whistleblowers from the long delays often experienced in administrative cases and ensures that they can present their case to members of the community and not just a single judge.

Statute of Limitations and Prohibition of Contractual Waivers

The statute of limitations for filing a claim is a minimum of three years, but can be extended based on the information that is presented. This is a progressive feature in the law permitting whistleblowers ample time to secure new employment prior to engaging in a public legal case against their former employer. An essential aspect of the law is its strict prohibition against contractual waivers of whistleblowers’ rights, be they obligations to submit complaints to mandatory arbitrations, or being forced to sign restrictive non-disclosure agreements. Employers’ use of contracts to circumvent whistleblower laws has a troublesome history, which, consistent with all modern whistleblower laws, the statute would prevent.

Damages and Overall Significance

Should a whistleblower be wrongfully terminated, the law provides a fully make-whole remedy, including back pay, benefits, reinstatement, and compensatory damages. If a whistleblower prevails, the company must pay attorneys’ fees and costs. Although the statute does not have punitive damages, it does have a double back pay provision, which serves a similar purpose. Double back pay also protects whistleblowers from having to meet the extremely heavy burden required to demonstrate punitive damages.

This law is a significant step forward in ensuring that employers, senior managers, and appropriate government officials can obtain early warnings of significant harmful impacts that could be caused by misconduct in the development and deployment of AI. Most significantly, it is a necessary safeguard against the well-documented risks to the public interest can be reported, investigated, and, if necessary, stopped.

Is there a financial compensation program in the AIWPA?

The AIWPA does not directly offer monetary awards for those who come forward. Typically, these are only afforded by Congress when it passes overarching industry standards, which it has not yet done in the AI space. However, there are cases where AI employees can still seek protections under Dodd-Frank — such as when a publicly traded company or company registered with the SEC violates securities laws in the implementation, deployment, marketing, or solicitation of investors of their technology. Congress must consider AI-specific employee protections in any AI regulation it passes.