In an Engaging the Phenomenon podcast discussion Ross Coulthart told James Iandoli: "I've been told this by people who are thinking of coming forward, I think the whistleblower laws are a joke, they're not adequate for the purposes in which they're designed. They're placing a burden on the whistleblower to take civil action to enforce the obligations on Government agencies that are stipulated by the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) laws. There shouldn't have to be a requirement placed on a potential whistleblower to take civil action. What lawyer is going to act against the US Government apart from Dan Sheehan? He can only do so many cases. The simple reality is this law is a whistleblower protection law in name only. Frankly if you are deadly serious about enforcing the will of the congress in making sure that the potential whistleblowers are protected, then it should be an obligation that's based on some suitably independent agency - maybe one of the oversight bodies in America, maybe the Inspector General defense.
Frankly I don't see why whistleblowers should be put to the time, effort and expense of having to pay to civil litigation themselves if they get screwed by the department that they're blabbing on. The bottom line is it should be a statutory penalty that's imposed on a department that is shown to have done the wrong thing by a whistleblower. There's no such penalty, there's no such deterrent, so frankly I don't think the NDAA law is fit for purpose."