Bill Overview
Title: Espionage Act Reform Act of 2022
Description: This bill limits the scope of certain criminal offenses relating to classified information. Under the bill, the offense of disclosing classified information to an unauthorized person may be committed only by an individual who is authorized to receive the classified information and has signed a nondisclosure agreement regarding such classified information (i.e., a covered person), whereas under current law any individual may be charged with this offense. Under the bill, this offense shall not apply to disclosures of information to any Member of Congress, a federal court, an inspector general in the intelligence community, or certain bodies such as the Federal Trade Commission. Similarly, under the bill, certain offenses related to gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information may be committed only by a covered person or a foreign agent, whereas currently such offenses may be committed by any person. Under the bill, an individual who is not a foreign agent may not be criminally charged for such offenses unless the individual meets certain requirements, such as having committed a felony under federal law in the course of committing the offense. An offense related to obtaining and copying a document connected with the national defense shall apply only to an unlawfully obtained nonpublic document, whereas the current statute does not limit the scope of this offense to such documents. An offense related to dispensing certain public property of value shall apply only to tangible things, whereas the current statute does not limit the scope of this offense to tangible things.
Sponsors: Rep. Khanna, Ro [D-CA-17]
Target Audience
Population: People handling classified information
Estimated Size: 750000
- The bill focuses on individuals handling classified information and alters legal exposure from the Espionage Act.
- Currently, anyone disclosing classified information to an unauthorized person could be charged. The bill limits this to 'covered persons' (i.e., individuals authorized to access classified information who signed NDAs).
- Foreign agents are still covered under this reformed act, but the scope is narrowed for non-foreign agents taking part in related offenses.
- The changes protect individuals who disclose classified information to Congress, federal courts, inspectors general, and some other bodies, potentially alleviating whistleblowers from prosecutorial threats.
Reasoning
- The Espionage Act Reform Act of 2022 primarily impacts individuals directly dealing with classified information, such as government employees, military personnel, and contractors who have signed NDAs. These individuals are the 'covered persons' as defined by the policy.
- Given the limited duration of the policy's budget, the interviews will focus on people within this target population, exploring their perspectives on how the reduced legal exposure affects their sense of security and willingness to engage in whistleblowing activities.
- Since this bill reduces potential legal risks for disclosing classified information under certain conditions, it primarily affects their professional and personal securities.
- As the policy seeks to provide protections for whistleblowers, it's important to explore this group's perspective on matters of job satisfaction and ethical security.
Simulated Interviews
Federal employee (Washington D.C.)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The reform gives me some peace of mind because it narrows down who can be prosecuted. It assures me that I have a safer avenue to report any misconduct I might encounter.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Defense contractor (California)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm more willing to participate in projects now. The changes make it less likely that I could unknowingly breach the Espionage Act.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Journalist (New York)
Age: 55 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a step forward, but journalists and their sources still face significant risks when dealing with classified materials.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Cybersecurity analyst (Texas)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This encourages me to focus on cybersecurity risks without undue worries of prosecution for unintentional disclosures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Whistleblower (Virginia)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel more protected now, and it could encourage more people to come forward when needed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Intelligence analyst (Georgia)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy removes some ambiguity around my legal obligations, especially concerning working with oversight bodies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired lawmaker (Illinois)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The reform act strengthens the ability of oversight committees to gather necessary information without compromising individuals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Inspector General's office (Maryland)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy allows us to conduct investigations more freely and helps clear up previous legal gray areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Civil liberties attorney (Colorado)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this reform represents a clear step toward more balanced and fair prosecution regarding classified data.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Military officer (Virginia)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The law clarifies my responsibilities and reduces risks of unintended legal violations during my duties.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $15000000)
Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $15000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $15000000)
Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $15000000)
Year 10: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $15000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $15000000)
Key Considerations
- Reform alters the legal landscape for whistleblowers, thus potentially improving transparency and reporting in defense and intelligence sectors.
- There might be significant upfront administrative costs required to adapt to the legislative changes in policy and procedure.
- The legal system might incur initial costs in reclassifying current cases and adjusting to the new bounds of prosecution.