86 Time December 23–30, 2019
actions, they observed their duty as nonparti-
san members of the Executive Branch. None
of them broke the rules to try to counter him.
But the whistle-blower’s decision to bring
the facts to Congress transformed a battle over
the legality and propriety of Trump’s actions
into a clash of checks and balances. Presidents
have long negotiated with investigators over
their subpoenas. The Trump White House was
using the fight over Ukraine to try and shift the
balance of power back to where it was before
Congress forced Richard Nixon from office.
The Watergate scandal, and the morass
of illegal activities it uncovered in govern-
ment, also spurred expanded federal protec-
tions for government employees who speak
up about wrongdoing. With the Inspector
General Act of 1978 and subsequent amend-
ments, Congress created “permanent, non-
partisan and independent offices in more
than 70 federal agencies” whose job is to
“combat waste, fraud and abuse.” The 1989
Whistleblower Protection Act protects gov-
ernment officials from retaliation if they
disclose evidence of government wrongdo-
ing, including to Inspectors General. Mem-
bers of the intelligence community were
not provided a legal method of submit-
ting whistle-blower complaints until 1998.
Massive leaks of secrets prompted up-
dates. In 2010, Chelsea Manning uploaded
to WikiLeaks a vast trove of classified docu-
ments. Three years later, Edward Snowden
downloaded and leaked information about the
National Security Agency’s expansive eaves-
dropping techniques. Afterward, the U.S. gov-
ernment attempted to increase the penalties
for those who leaked classified documents
directly to the public—while also increasing
protections for those who play by the rules.
“That’s what’s so significant about the Ukrai-
nian case,” says whistle-blower attorney Ste-
phen Kohn. “Congress specifically said, If you
want to be protected under this law, you raise
your concerns this way.”
So what are the stakes of the Ukraine af-
fair? Whether America still provides safe-
guards for lawful dissent, in an era when the
President seems to mistake public servants for
personal employees, and cozies up to the lead-
ers of countries where dissent itself is illegal. If
events go badly for the analyst, future whistle-
blowers may not dare to come forward. Mean-
while, the question of whether or not to tes-
tify has placed the public servants at nothing
less than the fulcrum on which the balance of
power between Congress and the White House
will rest in the post-Trump era.
sIttIng In TIME’s Washington bureau not
far from the White House, one official, on the
verge of tears, called the past few weeks the
most difficult of a long career, with the scrutiny
affecting family and colleagues. Others aren’t
through it yet. Jennifer Williams, the career
foreign-service officer detailed to Vice
President Pence’s office, remains embroiled
in the congressional investigation. Democrats,
seeking evidence the Trump Administration
tried to cover up the Ukraine gambit, want to
know about a call between Pence and Zelensky
on Sept. 18. Williams is cooperating against the
White House’s wishes.
Several of the career officials who spoke to
TIME said they had agonized over the decision
to testify, even behind closed doors, where the
Intelligence Committee first heard witnesses.
These officials had served both Republican
and Democratic Administrations and wanted
to continue to do so. Though called to estab-
lish facts, they worried they would be seen as
partisan and perhaps damage their careers and
those of their staff.
After the President’s public attacks on
Yovanovitch and Taylor, others lived in fear of
a Trump tweet. The official White House ac-
count posted a tweet questioning Vindman’s
judgment. Hill received death threats ahead of
her hearings. Taylor’s wife worried that a far-
right extremist might show up at their home
in Virginia with a gun.
The White House didn’t respond to requests
for comment for this story. It has dismissed the
career civil servants as “radical unelected bu-
reaucrats” engaged in a “coordinated smear
campaign” with Democrats. Some Republicans
spoke out on their behalf. Representative Liz
Cheney of Wyoming was particularly vocal in
her defense of Vindman.
For many Americans, the testimony of these
public servants was a rare glimpse of the career
officials Trump tends to deride as the “deep
state.” In hearings this fall, the spotlight fell
not just on steady ambassadors, but on pre-
viously anonymous analysts, bureaucrats and
department aides, a group of women and men
who personify public service.
Viewers saw Vindman, an immigrant in
full military uniform, recount a remarkable
life story that had led to the White House.
“Dad, my sitting here today in the U.S. Cap-
itol talking to our elected officials is proof
that you made the right decision 40 years
ago to leave the Soviet Union and come here
to the United States of America in search of
a better life for our family,” he said. “Do not
worry. I will be fine for telling the truth.”‘A FICTIONAL NARRATIVE
Fiona Hill, in congressional testimonyPERPETRATED BY RUSSIAN SECURITY’
(^2019) GUARDIANS OF THE YEAR