As one of DC’s top whistleblower lawyers, Mark Zaid represents a host of current and former federal employees targeted by the second Trump administration. His nonprofit, Whistleblower Aid, helps guide insiders through the process of sounding the alarm on government impropriety without breaking the law themselves.
Zaid himself is not exactly the President’s favorite person: He served as a lawyer for the intelligence official who exposed the Ukraine scandal, which led to Trump’s first impeachment. At a 2019 Louisiana campaign rally, Trump held up a photo of Zaid and accused him of ripping “the guts out of our country.” The following day, Zaid received a graphic death threat, for which the sender was sentenced to a year in federal prison—he also threw a table at the FBI agents who came to investigate him, Zaid told Washingtonian during his last interview with us in 2021.
The last time Washingtonian spoke with Zaid, he expressed concern about what a second Trump term would mean for the protection of federal whistleblowers and the future of government accountability. Now that Trump 2.0 has dawned, we caught up with Zaid about the president’s latest norm-defying actions, what his clients are going through, and how journalists can keep themselves and their sources safe from top-level payback.
The following has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Washingtonian: Let’s start with your recent New York Times op-ed, “Trump Is Dismantling the System That Guards Against Government Malfeasance.” How does Trump’s purge of inspectors general compare to previous administrations that have made similar moves, like Reagan, whom you cite in the article?
Mark Zaid: It’s very unprecedented. When Reagan did what he did, it was on the cusp of that entire system just having been created not even three years earlier. I have no doubt that there was a level of uncertainty of what IGs are supposed to do, and what they were doing, and how that would play in administration to administration. So yes, it’s true: He fired a large number, if not all of them—I don’t know how many existed at the time—but then he allowed them to reapply for their jobs, and actually hired five of them. Since that time, 44 years later, that had not happened again until now.
IGs have different statuses: Some would be confirmed by the Senate, some would just be appointed or hired as a job inside an agency and they generally would not be removed, other than for cause that they themselves did something wrong personally or professionally. And so there have been some examples of IGs being removed throughout each administration, no doubt—never a mass firing. I think what makes the Trump firing so concerning is he literally fired his own IGs. He appointed many of these IGs during his first term, and we are seeing that he is doing that throughout the oversight system where accountability is paramount, including judges, administrative judges: He’s firing those he actually appointed because he wants to replace them all with diehard loyalists. They may continue to do a lot of the functions that an IG would do: “Hey, there’s an allegation of sexual harassment by a senior management official,” or an audit to see if spending is being handled properly—none of which would have political implications as a normal matter, but will ensure that neither Trump nor his top political appointees would ever be subject to true oversight.
I’m curious whether Whistleblower Aid’s caseload has changed since the inauguration—I could see you getting an influx of cases, but I could also see whistleblowers being less likely to come forward due to fear of retribution.
It hasn’t been an influx of whistleblowers yet because they haven’t had an opportunity to see anything to blow the whistle on: A lot of these people are being fired or suspended immediately. I’m getting dozens of inquiries every day from concerned federal employees, some of whom have already been suspended or fired, or others who are concerned that they will be targeted in some way. Our concern is, as the administration actually has time to get to get solid footing and function as a government, that is when individuals who have remained will start to become whistleblowers. And then the concern is, well, what do we do with them? What pathway can we take them through that would provide them proper protection from retaliation? And we’re concerned that that won’t exist, at least not in a way that it used to. Who in the public sector, who in the private sector will be able to step up to help—which would include not only the pro bono representation, but also to help these fired workers who stepped forward to pay for their mortgages or whatever other life expenses they need. Literally, food on their plate.
People don’t think about that. It’s easy to say, “Yeah, we’re going to represent you for free.” That’s awesome, and there’s a lot of people stepping up, but that doesn’t pay their children’s tuition bills, and while we’re not looking to give them necessarily free loans, there’s got to be some assistance provided to these individuals who have only been targeted because of what they are viewed to represent—which is essentially as a perceived enemy of the administration because they declined to adhere to loyalty oaths or obligations to a person who serves in the White House, rather than the institution itself. But these are a lot of issues that are coming up. I mean, I arranged for mental health counseling for a client who’s suicidal.
You’ve talked about receiving death threats and even being swatted because of your work representing Trump targets.
Yeah, who would have thought? All for just doing our job, as we do throughout every administration—Democrat and Republican, no different—and we would be professional and friendly because we know many of the people who are inside the agencies because they were our colleagues during the last administration. Very much a typical revolving door. But both Trump administrations have been very different, as has been many of their diehard supporters. You can vote for Donald Trump and you would never think to call a SWAT team on on someone who’s representing a whistleblower simply because you disagree with what that individual is arguing. But it is a very dangerous situation that exists right now, and there is a high likelihood that innocent people are going to get hurt at some point because of this lunacy that exists at times in a hyper-partisan environment.
These displays of retaliation also come for the media. How can journalists protect themselves and their sources?
Journalists have to be incredibly careful right now. This is likely the most dangerous time period that any of them have ever experienced in their professional career and lifetime, even considering Trump 1. Far worse than than Trump 1. Because in Trump 1, there were still norms that were being followed. The norms were being were being pushed against, but they typically weren’t being barreled over. In this Trump 2, there are no guardrails any longer, and there will be steps taken by the administration for their promises to not just push the envelope but to go straight through it. I am incredibly concerned that there will be journalists prosecuted under the Espionage Act for reporting—illegally, to be clear—classified information that had been given to them, as soon as it significantly embarrasses this administration. And it will just take that one test case because under the Espionage Act, there is no First Amendment defense, and whoever is the test case will suffer greatly.
That means there has to be some real significant decisions made by publications as to how they go about writing stories, including perhaps not with bylines of individual reporters to minimize the risk to any one individual, as well as to truly protect sources in an old-school way. Literally, Deep Throat in parking garages. But this isn’t 1971 any longer. We have cellphones and electronics that control our lives. You cannot leave an electronic trail in any way, shape, or form. You cannot communicate on email or cellphones. You cannot bring your cellphones with you to meetings because these devices can be tracked and hacked. And I’m not going to put anything past this administration to use the law in a way—especially if it’s national security-related—to push the constitutional protections that otherwise would exist. I think even good judges would issue a national security warrant if presented with evidence that a news outlet published classified information—put a wire surveillance on the reporter, put a tap on the phone, and serve a subpoena on Google to grab all their communications. The only thing that has ever stopped that previously has been norms of policies and adherence to the proper role that the media plays in our democracy. And sometimes prior administrations, including Obama’s, stepped on that line, maybe even went over. But as soon as they got called out on it, they retracted and they instituted new policies to ensure that wouldn’t happen again. The problem is a policy can be thrown out very easily and is not binding for subsequent administrations. So it is potentially the Wild West out there for journalists right now when it comes to reporting on this administration.
There is a seemingly endless gush of news related to leaks and executive revenge. What stories, in your opinion, should we be paying the most attention to?
That’s a hard one because the strategy, whether intentional or unintentional, of this administration is to move at such a speed with its decisions and implementation of policies that it’s overwhelming the legal community, as well as the journalistic one. And what would be a front page story is now on page seven because there’s 20 other front page stories. The media is going to have to remain vigilant and choose—just as lawyers choose their battles—the priority. Unfortunately, as far as what needs to be covered, and particularly anything that obviously would cross the lines into unconscionable action or illegality, I really do think that our country is going to be in a state for the foreseeable future—two to four years or more—that will feel to some as though we’re on the brink of destruction. Ultimately, whatever it will be viewed as or become, I think we’ll become stronger for it. But it’s going to take time.