Texas House Bill HB 5573

Texas 2025 - 89th Regular

• Filed: 3/14/25
• Out of House Committee: 5/8/25

Caption

Relating to the reporting of violations of law and wasteful spending under the whistleblower protection laws.

Summary

HB 5573 expands Texas whistleblower protections for public employees by expressly covering reports of both violations of law and wasteful spending. It amends Chapter 554 of the Government Code to rename the chapter accordingly and clarifies that a state or local governmental entity may not suspend, terminate, or otherwise take adverse personnel action against a public employee who in good faith reports such conduct. Reports of legal violations must be made to an appropriate law enforcement authority, while reports of wasteful spending must be made to the State Auditor’s Office. The bill also clarifies what counts as an appropriate law enforcement authority and strengthens the evidentiary framework in whistleblower cases. If an adverse action occurs within 90 days after the report, the action is presumed to be retaliatory unless rebutted, and the employing entity may raise an affirmative defense by showing it would have taken the same action for reasons unrelated to the protected report. The bill would take effect immediately if approved by a two-thirds vote in each chamber, or otherwise on September 1, 2025.

Impact

HB 5573 would broaden and clarify the scope of Texas whistleblower law by adding protection for reports of wasteful spending and by updating the statutory chapter heading and retaliation provisions in Chapter 554 of the Government Code. It affects state and local governmental employers, public employees, and the entities designated to receive reports, especially law enforcement authorities and the State Auditor’s Office. The bill would also affect litigation under the whistleblower statute by creating a 90-day presumption of retaliation and preserving an employer affirmative defense.

Sentiment

The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no detailed public debate to assess. The bill’s introduction by multiple House members and its subject matter suggest a generally reform-oriented, accountability-focused purpose, but the last recorded action was postponement in the House, indicating it did not advance smoothly at that stage. Overall, the bill appears to have been framed as a good-government measure aimed at protecting employees who report misconduct or inefficient use of public funds.

Contention

The main points of potential contention are the expansion of protected activity to include “wasteful spending,” the choice of reporting channels, and the 90-day presumption of retaliation. Government employers may view the broader protections and rebuttable presumption as increasing exposure to whistleblower claims, while supporters are likely to argue that the changes are necessary to encourage reporting and deter retaliation. The affirmative defense language also suggests a balancing effort, allowing employers to defend actions based on legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons.