The AI Whistleblower Protection Act (AIWPA) aims to shield workers who identify serious problems with artificial intelligence systems from losing their jobs or facing legal consequences for reporting concerns. Introduced in May 2025 by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Representative Jay Obernolte (R-CA), the bipartisan legislation addresses a critical oversight in current AI governance: there are no federal protections specifically designed for employees and contractors who spot dangerous flaws in AI systems before regulators or lawmakers have even established rules against them.

Why Do AI Workers Need Special Whistleblower Protections?

Existing federal whistleblower laws protect workers in specific industries like nuclear energy and aviation, but AI is different. The technology is evolving so rapidly that serious risks may emerge before Congress has time to pass laws prohibiting the problematic behavior. An AI employee who identifies a potentially dangerous system today might not have clear legal protection under current statutes, creating a chilling effect on internal reporting.

This gap matters because the people closest to AI development, testing, and deployment are often the first to recognize when something has gone wrong. A flaw in a system used by thousands or millions of people could have consequences far beyond the workplace where the problem was first identified, making early warnings from insiders especially valuable.

The urgency of this issue became apparent in 2024, when 13 AI whistleblowers issued the "Right to Warn" letter, highlighting serious safety risks associated with advanced AI and calling for legal protections for insiders. One of those whistleblowers was Daniel Kokotajlo, a former governance researcher at OpenAI who was named to Time's 100 Most Influential People in AI in 2024.

What Would the AIWPA Actually Protect?

The legislation would establish federal protections for current and former employees as well as independent contractors who report concerns about AI systems. The bill covers two main categories of protected disclosures:

• AI Security Vulnerabilities: Security failures or lapses that could allow emerging AI technology to be stolen or acquired by foreign entities or other bad actors.
• AI Violations: Violations of federal law related to AI development, deployment, or use, as well as failures to respond appropriately to substantial and specific dangers that AI may pose to public safety, public health, or national security.

The second category is particularly significant because it protects workers who report risks that aren't yet illegal. Traditional whistleblower protections typically focus on reporting conduct that already violates established law, but the AIWPA recognizes that emerging technology can create serious dangers before lawmakers have had time to establish specific prohibitions.

Workers could report information through multiple channels, including federal regulatory officials, the Attorney General, law enforcement agencies, members of Congress, and congressional committees. The bill also protects internal disclosures to supervisors or others within an organization who have authority to investigate or address the reported misconduct.

How Would the AIWPA Protect Workers From Retaliation?

For whistleblower protections to work, employees must have confidence that speaking up will not cost them their jobs. The AIWPA would prohibit employers from discharging, demoting, suspending, threatening, blacklisting, harassing, or otherwise discriminating against a covered individual because of protected whistleblowing activity.

The bill also addresses a practical obstacle that often discourages workers from coming forward: restrictive employment agreements. Many AI companies use nondisclosure agreements and mandatory arbitration clauses that can prevent employees from reporting concerns to the government or Congress. The AIWPA would prevent AI whistleblower rights from being waived through employment contracts and would limit the use of mandatory arbitration to keep whistleblower claims out of court.

"The AIWPA's principle is straightforward. The people closest to an emerging technology should not have to choose between protecting the public and protecting their careers," stated Jeana Lee, Program Manager at the National Whistleblower Center.

Jeana Lee, Program Manager at the National Whistleblower Center

What Do AI Insiders Say About the Risks?

Daniel Kokotajlo, now executive director of the AI Futures Project, has been vocal about the stakes involved. Speaking at National Whistleblower Day 2025, he warned of the ways AI development can spiral out of control. His organization identifies the top risks related to advanced AI systems as "Concentration of Power" and "Loss of Control." Kokotajlo emphasized that once extremely powerful AI systems are deployed across the economy, automating jobs and integrating into military and government functions, whoever controls these systems could plausibly control entire nations.

"Whoever controls these AI systems will plausibly just be in control of the world, or at least the U.S. or whoever is leading the integration," Kokotajlo explained.

Daniel Kokotajlo, Executive Director of the AI Futures Project

Senator Grassley emphasized the importance of giving workers a protected avenue to report concerns before preventable problems become catastrophes. "Transparency brings accountability," he said upon introducing the AIWPA. "Today, too many people working in AI feel they're unable to speak up when they see something wrong. Whistleblowers are one of the best ways to ensure Congress keeps pace as the AI industry rapidly develops".

Senator Grassley

Where Does the AIWPA Stand in Congress?

Both the Senate version (S. 1792) and the House companion bill (H.R. 3460) remain pending in Congress as of September 2026. The National Whistleblower Center has made passage of the AIWPA a central policy priority, recognizing it as a critical missing piece of the emerging AI governance framework.

The legislation comes at an important moment for AI policy, as Congress grapples with how to regulate a technology that is advancing faster than traditional regulatory processes can accommodate. The AIWPA represents one approach to that challenge: rather than trying to anticipate every possible risk and write rules in advance, the law would empower the people closest to AI systems to flag emerging dangers and report them safely.