UPHOLD CONSTITUTION
The situation involving Larry Criscione is more than a disagreement over tone or workplace etiquette (“The cost of free speech,” Dec. 18). It reveals a federal agency disregarding the constitutional protections, statutory requirements and due‑process procedures that exist to safeguard both employees and the public interest. When a regulatory body charged with protecting the nation’s safety violates the rules that govern its own conduct, the public has every reason to be concerned.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission email that triggered this conflict was presented as informational, yet its content was unmistakably political. It assigned exclusive blame to one political party for a potential shutdown that threatened to furlough employees, used partisan framing to express opinion rather than neutral fact, and was sent on duty, from a position of authority, during a period of uncertainty and apprehension. Federal employees may not engage in political activity while on duty. The NRC’s own communication violated that prohibition
Criscione’s response, posted on his personal social media account, was fully protected. He had the right to express his opinion in his individual capacity, in an assembly of his social contacts, and he retains the right to redress regardless of his later retirement. His post was off‑duty, personal, nonthreatening and expressed personal opinion on a matter of public concern. Nothing about it violated law, security or agency policy.
By contrast, the actions taken against him – soliciting a termination recommendation, mischaracterizing his lawful speech as misconduct, failing to prevent retaliation and misleading him about his rights – are prohibited personnel practices. The earlier threats he faced during the Callaway incident further underscore the pattern. Nothing he disclosed in either incident was an actionable offense.
Leadership within a federal agency carries a heightened responsibility. Leaders are entrusted with serving the public, guiding the department, protecting their employees and fostering cooperation. These duties are the foundation of public service. And they are easily fulfilled when leadership operates within the legal framework Congress has established. Holding a leadership position does not grant greater flexibility to bend or break the law; it imposes a greater obligation to uphold it. When leaders disregard these obligations, they undermine the very integrity of the institution they are meant to steward.
Kendra Barlow-Johnson
Via illinoistimes.com
CAREFUL WHAT YOU SAY
Free speech is one thing, but consequences from exercising your right to free speech are quite another. If one wants to keep their job, they need to temper their opinion about their employer, especially on public forums.
This is not a novel concept, as I was a near 30-year state employee and everyone knew that you did not criticize your employer in a public forum without expecting some sort of reprisal. It didn’t matter which side of the fence you were on.
Once again, Illinois Times demonstrates its obvious bias. I’m sure there are stories out there for people on the other side who have experienced the same result from their outspokenness, but I haven’t seen any of those stories in IT.
Greg Kelso
Via illinoistimes.com
NOT RETALIATION
As the attorney quoted in the article pointed out, Larry Criscione wasn’t speaking as a private citizen – he posted to a public forum as a federal employee (his LinkedIn account identified him as such). And, by the individual’s own admission, this isn’t the first time he has been counseled for his behavior. This certainly is not a First Amendment issue or whistleblower retaliation.
Robert Lee
Via Facebook.com/illinoistimes
OWN IT
I agree with Larry Criscione wholeheartedly, but if I posted online that my boss was spineless, I wouldn’t have a job. I applaud the honesty, but integrity is about owning what you did.
Steven Wilmert
Via Facebook.com/illinoistimes
THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES
Larry Criscione had the right to say what he did. If he had not put it in a public forum, he may have had a different outcome. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from the consequences your speech produces.
Robert L. Patterson
Via Facebook.com/illinoistimes
This article appears in January 08-14, 2026.
