Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Wooden gavel.
Trump seeks top court’s permission to fire whistleblower protector
The White House relieved Dellinger of his duties on Feb. 7, but a federal judge blocked it three days later and reinstated him. A US circuit court — the second highest in the land — rejected the first appeal, prompting the White House to take the case to the nation’s top court.
The case could provide a window into whether the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, would be willing to limit US President Donald Trump’s executive authority. Republicans have urged the country’s legal system not to stymie the president’s agenda: Vice President JD Vancesaid earlier this month that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”
From removing inspector generals and gutting agencies like USAID, to flying undocumented immigrants to Guantánamo Bay, Trump has tried to push the boundaries of his office within the first few weeks of his presidency. His policies have run into a legal wall, though, as groups challenge the moves in court — and sometimes with success.
Whether Trump tries to override the courts is another matter. Last week, he said he will “abide by the courts.” Over the weekend, though, he wrote, “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law,” a quote oft attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte.
With the Trump administration having filed its appeal in the Dellinger case, the Supreme Court must now decide whether it will hear the case. Of the roughly 7,000 appeals that it receives each year, the Court only hears about 100-150 of them.
Whistleblowing is as old as America itself
Whistleblowing is nothing new … the country’s first whistleblower case can be traced back to its founding.
Our villain is a man named Esek Hopkins, born in 1718 to a prominent Rhode Island family. He went to sea as a privateeer at the age of 20 and made a name for himself in 1765 by captaining the slave ship Sally, from West Africa to the West Indies. During the journey, 109 out of the 196 slaves aboard lost their lives. In one of our country’s earliest instances of “failing up,” Hopkins’ disastrous command of the Sally earned him the role of Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Navy just as the Revolutionary War broke out.
The story of Hopkins' rise and fall is one that shaped the course of American history, by bringing into existance the country's first Whistleblower protections.
The path to holding social media companies accountable
Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen thinks governments need to rethink how they regulate social media companies to hold them accountable for the consequences of their actions.
Instead of laws banning specific stuff, which lawyers are very good at skirting, governments should develop legislation that opens conversations about potential problems.
"That's an ongoing, flexible approach to trying to direct them back towards the common good," she tells Ian Bremmer on GZERO World.
Also, Haugen says we must recognize that the gap between fast-changing tech and slow-moving governments will continue to widen. To narrow it, we'll need more whistleblowers — and better laws to protect them.
Watch the GZERO World episode: Why social media is broken & how to fix it
- US in 2022: Smarter social media, more housing & living with COVID ›
- Be more worried about artificial intelligence - GZERO Media ›
- What is Section 230, the 90's law governing the internet? - GZERO ... ›
- Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen says social media ... ›
- Toxic social media & American divisiveness - GZERO Media ›
Facebook's terrible week proves tech policy changes are needed
Marietje Schaake, International Policy Director at Stanford's Cyber Policy Center, Eurasia Group senior advisor and former MEP, discusses trends in big tech, privacy protection and cyberspace:
Will the testimony of the whistleblower be a game changer?
Now it certainly was a down week for Facebook, which also faced a major outage and new accusations by Frances Haugen, the whistleblower who provided a trove of information first to the Wall Street Journal, and then gave testimony before US Congress. She reminded the world of how little transparency we really have into what Facebook does and how its business models create societal harms. But really after a week of outcry, we need more than that. Only clear policies will bring back the balance between the power of private companies like Facebook and independent oversight.
What policies are needed to tame the Facebook beast?
Well, in the US there has been a disproportionate focus on speech protections, which are of course key, but so is non-discrimination or antitrust. And the collection, brokering, sell, and use of data is crucial to the business models of social media giants. And with the US federal data governance law, that includes protections, but also foresees an access to data for researchers, the way that EU proposals do, a step in the right direction can be made. Only when we have a better sense of the effects of digital services, can we have a well-informed public debate and the appropriate public policies. So there are different parts of a legislative puzzle that have to come together. Unfortunately, no silver bullets. But hopefully the many harms that are now crystal clear, whether they involve children, democracy, or fair competition, can be solved with clear antitrust rules, privacy protections, data governance, and access provisions, which together will ensure greater accountability and democratic guarantees.