This bill expands whistleblower protections against reprisal for employees and organizations involved in Department of Defense, NASA, and general federal contracts and grants, strengthening enforcement and invalidating waivers like predispute arbitration agreements.
Gary Peters
Senator
MI
This bill, the Expanding Whistleblower Protections for Contractors Act of 2025, significantly strengthens protections for individuals working under federal contracts and grants, including those with the DoD and NASA. It broadens the scope of who is protected and what types of disclosures—such as reporting waste or safety dangers—are covered. Furthermore, the legislation explicitly voids any agreement, including mandatory arbitration clauses, that attempts to waive these new whistleblower rights and remedies.
Federal Contractors Get Stronger Whistleblower Shield: Mandatory Arbitration Banned for Claims
If you work for a company that does business with the federal government—whether you’re coding software for NASA or running construction for the DoD—this bill is a big deal. The “Expanding Whistleblower Protections for Contractors Act of 2025” takes existing protections for federal contractors and turns them into something with real teeth. This isn’t just about protecting a few employees; it’s about increasing accountability across the massive federal contracting ecosystem, which is where a lot of taxpayer money goes.
Who’s Covered Now? Everyone.
Before this bill, whistleblower protections for contractors were a little narrower. Now, Section 2 and Section 3 redefine who counts as a “protected individual” who cannot face retaliation. It’s not just employees anymore. The protection extends to the contractor organization itself (the company, the grantee, the subcontractor), and crucially, it includes people working under personal services contracts. If you’re a freelance consultant or a 1099 worker providing services to the federal government, you are now officially covered. This matters because the gig economy is huge, and many federal projects rely on these types of workers who previously had fewer options if they saw something wrong.
Protecting the Right to Say 'No'
The bill significantly expands what you are protected for disclosing. Beyond reporting gross mismanagement, waste, or abuse of authority—which was already covered—you are now protected for two key actions. First, you cannot face reprisal for disclosing information you reasonably believe is evidence of a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. Second, and this is critical, you are protected if you refuse to obey an order that would require you to violate a law, rule, or regulation related to the contract. Think about a construction worker told to cut corners on safety standards to meet a deadline, or a software engineer ordered to falsify testing data. Under this law, refusing that illegal order is a protected act.
The End of Forced Arbitration for Whistleblowers
One of the most powerful provisions in this Act is found in the enforcement sections (Sec. 2 and Sec. 3), which address predispute arbitration agreements. For years, many employers have required employees to sign away their right to sue in court, forcing any dispute—including whistleblower claims—into private arbitration. This bill explicitly states that the rights and remedies provided here cannot be waived by any agreement, policy, or condition of employment, including any predispute arbitration agreement. Any part of an arbitration agreement that tries to force a whistleblower claim into arbitration is invalid and unenforceable. This means if you blow the whistle and face retaliation, you get your day in court, not just in front of a private arbitrator chosen by the company.
New Teeth for Enforcement
This legislation doesn't just expand protections; it strengthens the consequences for those who violate them. The bill grants new authority to the Inspector General (IG) offices, including the DoD IG. If the IG investigates a complaint and finds that a reprisal was requested by an executive branch official—say, a manager at a federal agency pressured a contractor to fire the employee who reported them—the IG now has the authority to propose disciplinary action against that federal official. This is a direct line of accountability that targets the federal side of the equation, creating a significant deterrent against officials trying to silence critics.
The Bottom Line
For the average person working on a federal contract, this bill means better job security and a clearer path to report wrongdoing without fear of immediate financial ruin or getting trapped in a mandatory arbitration loop. For contractors and employers, it means increasing scrutiny and a higher standard of ethical conduct. While the standard of “reasonably believe” could potentially open the door to a few more unsubstantiated complaints (a slight concern for busy oversight agencies), the overall impact is overwhelmingly positive: more sunlight on federal spending and better protection for those who keep the system honest.