PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.By Senator Grassley from Committee on the Judiciary filed written report. Report No. 114-261.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Apr 14, 2016
Federal Bureau of Investigation Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2016
(Sec. 2) This bill revises whistle-blower protections for a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) employee or job applicant who discloses wrongdoing to an appropriate official.
Specifically, it prohibits an FBI or Department of Justice (DOJ) employee from taking or failing to take a personnel action (e.g., demotion) with respect to an FBI employee or applicant because of a protected disclosure. A protected disclosure is a disclosure of information to an appropriate official which an employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences: (1) a violation of a law, rule, or regulation; or (2) waste, fraud, or abuse. The bill expands the list of appropriate officials who may receive a protected disclosure to include a supervisor in an employee's direct chain of command.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Additionally, the bill sets forth procedures for filing, investigating, adjudicating, and reviewing whistle-blower retaliation complaints.
An FBI employee or applicant may file a complaint with DOJ's Office of Inspector General (OIG), which must investigate and decide whether reasonable grounds exist to believe that a prohibited personnel action occurred.
If either party files an objection to the OIG's decision, then an administrative law judge (ALJ) must review it, on the record, and issue a written decision. The ALJ's determination becomes final, unless it is appealed to or reviewed by DOJ. Any ALJ or DOJ determination is subject to judicial review.
People & committees
Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA] · R–IA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
By Senator Grassley from Committee on the Judiciary filed written report. Report No. 114-261.
By Senator Grassley from Committee on the Judiciary filed written report. Report No. 114-261.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 421.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Grassley with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Grassley with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S8605; text of measure as introduced: CR S8606-8607)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.2390 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.2390 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.2390 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.2390 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.