Niccolò Machiavelli

I work at a federal agency and I've discovered that my department has been systematically falsifying safety inspection data for a major industry. People have died because of this. I have documents proving everything. The legal route is a dead end—I've tried. The inspector general is compromised. Congressional oversight is gridlocked. The industry has too many lobbyists. A journalist has offered to publish everything if I leak the documents. It would be illegal. I'd likely go to prison. But it might save lives. My lawyer says there's another way: I could use what I know as leverage. Quietly approach the agency head, make clear what I have, negotiate reforms in exchange for my silence. "That's how Washington actually works," she says. "You get results without martyrdom." The leverage play feels dirty—I'd be using the same transactional logic that created this corruption. But the leak might accomplish nothing except destroying my life. When the system is broken, do you work within its rules or break them? Is it better to be effective or to be pure? — The Whistleblower's Dilemma in Washington

58 votes