Not directly anyway.
The relevant statute prohibits (a) a federal agency from (b) firing or taking other employment actions, against a whistleblower.
Contrary to popular belief, that statute does not prohibit identification of the whistleblower, and certainly not by parties who are not a federal agency.
The relevant stuff is in section (b)(8) here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/2302
(b) Any employee who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action, shall not, with respect to such authority—
(8) take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take, a personnel action with respect to any employee or applicant for employment because of—
(A) any disclosure of information by an employee or applicant which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences—
(i) any violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or
(ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety,
if such disclosure is not specifically prohibited by law and if such information is not specifically required by Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign affairs; or
(B) any disclosure to the Special Counsel, or to the Inspector General of an agency or another employee designated by the head of the agency to receive such disclosures, of information which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences—
(i) any violation (other than a violation of this section) of any law, rule, or regulation, or
(ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety;
-------------
The definition of "personnel action" is in section (a), and does not extend to public identification of said person.
If someone wants to go with some other theory of possible civil liability, that's a different topic of discussion.
= new reply since forum marked as read
