76 Time December 23–30, 2019
silence, the analyst asked, “What do I do now?”
The law provides one answer. In 2014, Con-
gress added a paragraph to the statute that cre-
ated the role of intelligence community Inspec-
tor General. “An individual who has submitted a
complaint or information to the Inspector Gen-
eral,” it reads, “may notify any member of either
of the Congressional intelligence committees,
or a staff member of either of such committees.”
For the analyst, it wasn’t an easy call. The
attempt to block the complaint had upped the
stakes. What would happen if the analyst came
forward? Whistle-blowers are protected from
retaliation by law, but President Trump had
attacked government officials before, and his
supporters were even more threatening. Con-
gress was its own minefield. Republicans on
the Hill had backed Trump on Russia, the an-
alyst’s area of expertise. Democrats, for their
part, were looking for an edge in the 2020 elec-
tion and might turn a government employee,
like the whistle-blower, into one.
But multiple people had told the analyst
that during a July 25 phone call, the President
had “sought to pressure” his Ukrainian coun-
terpart to dig up dirt on political rivals and pur-
sue a debunked conspiracy theory about the
2016 election. The analyst believed that Trump
was using the sovereign power of the American
presidency in an attempt to stay in office. It was
an affront to democracy, the whistle-blower
decided. There was only one ethical choice—
going to Congress and telling the truth.
As it turned out, the analyst was not alone.
For much of 2019, in different corners of Amer-
ica’s globe-spanning national-security appa-
ratus, more than a dozen public servants re-
ported concerns to their superiors about the
President’s handling of Ukraine. They were
diplomats and policy wonks, budget crunch-
ers and combat veterans. Most had acted alone,
largely unaware of what was happening else-
where in government. None knew until much
later how far things had gone. Each had played
by the rules, putting professionalism and pub-
lic service ahead of their own policy prefer-
ence. Each had been ignored or quashed by
political bosses up the chain of command.
The analyst’s actions helped launch a
fast-moving congressional investigation that
brought the dissent to light. The rush of rev-
elations that has followed paints a damning
portrait of the President’s use, and abuse, of
power. The public servants who came for-
ward provided the foundation for the articles
of impeachment against Trump that are ex-
pected to be approved by the U.S. House of
Representatives before Christmas. That vote
would set up a Senate trial with the possibility,
albeit remote, that Trump could become the
first President removed from office for violat-
ing the Constitution and the law.
Yet how things play out for these once un-
known federal employees may be as important,
if not more so. Even before we had a Consti-
tution, we had protections for public servants
who report abuses of power. “It is the duty of
all persons in the service of the United States,”
the Continental Congress resolved on July 30,
1778, in the middle of the Revolution, “to give
the earliest information to Congress or any
other proper authority of any misconduct,
frauds or misdemeanors committed by any of-
ficers or persons in the service of these states.”JENNIFER
WILLIAMS
Special adviser to the
Vice President for
Europe and RussiaA foreign-service officer
detailed to Pence’s office
last spring, Williams
testified about the July 25
call between Trump and
Zelensky.PREVIOUS PAGES: PHOTOGRAPH BY JOHN REYNOLDS
(^2019) GUARDIANS OF THE YEAR