WHIP-ing Up New Fraud Referrals: DOJ Announces Whistleblower Incentive Program to Combat Fraud

On October 20, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a new whistleblower program run by its National Fraud Enforcement Division (Fraud Division). The Fraud Whistleblower Incentive Program (WHIP), designated in DOJ’s published terms as the Criminal Tip Rewards Pilot Program, promises to pay tipsters early. While most government whistleblower programs pay awards only at the end of a case, WHIP instead pays $10,000 to $30,000 once a tip leads to criminal charges. Tipsters also remain eligible for larger awards under other programs, including the Criminal Division’s Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program. President Trump stated that whistleblowers ultimately may receive a “commission” equal to 1% of the value of fraud reported, although this “commission” is not detailed in the Fraud Division’s WHIP guidance.

WHIP represents the latest in a series of efforts to encourage whistleblowers to report suspected misconduct to enforcement authorities. These include earlier programs from DOJ’s Criminal and Antitrust Divisions, as well as programs run by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. It also comes less than three weeks after Assistant Attorney General Colin McDonald, who leads the Fraud Division, directed the Division to develop policies that incentivize whistleblowers to report fraud. Taken together, these programs show that enforcers continue to give whistleblowers — and their counsel — more reasons and avenues to report suspected misconduct to them.

Below, we detail WHIP, compare it to the Criminal Division’s existing whistleblower program, and provide takeaways for life science companies and providers.

How WHIP Works

WHIP is a three-year pilot program. DOJ retains sole discretion over program eligibility and the amount of any award. To qualify, a tipster must be an individual, not a company. The tip must be voluntary, truthful, complete, original, and in writing, and the tipster must fully cooperate. The tip also must involve federal healthcare offenses or fraud on government programs. The fraud need not target a federal program directly; it is enough if a federal program ultimately bears some of the loss, such as when a state program is reimbursed with federal funds. The information also must lead to criminal charges. Consistent with prior enforcement priority announcements, DOJ indicated that it will place particular emphasis on submissions involving hospice, home healthcare, day care, and special services fraud.

DOJ places further limits on WHIP eligibility. Tipsters who meaningfully participated in the fraud generally are barred from the program; however, a “minimal participant” may still get a reduced award. DOJ also may deny an award to a manager who oversaw the misconduct or ignored red flags. Finally, information generally is not deemed “original” if it comes from officers, directors, compliance or internal audit staff, outside investigators, or outside auditors. The same is true of information learned through privileged communications. These limits appear intended to keep those responsible for detecting and correcting misconduct from going directly to DOJ.

There are exceptions to certain of these limits. Otherwise ineligible information may count as “original” if the tipster reasonably believes disclosure is necessary to prevent imminent harm to patients or others, or harm to national security. It also may count if the tipster reasonably believes the company is acting to impede an investigation. And officers, directors, and compliance and audit staff become eligible 120 days after they report the concern to the audit committee, chief legal officer, chief compliance officer, or their supervisor. These exceptions appear designed to pressure companies to investigate internal complaints quickly, before employees take them to DOJ.

How the Program Compares to the Criminal Division’s Program

WHIP builds on the Criminal Division’s Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program, which DOJ launched in August 2024. Both programs reward whistleblowers for information leading to criminal cases. But the two programs differ in three important ways.

First, timing and size. The Criminal Division’s program pays only if a tip leads to a criminal or civil forfeiture of more than $1 million. In contrast, WHIP pays a modest, fixed-range award when charges are unsealed, with no forfeiture or loss requirement. DOJ says it chose this model for WHIP to give tipsters more certainty about how much they will be paid and when. And a tipster can collect under both programs.

Second, subject matter. The Criminal Division’s program targets corporate crime: violations by financial institutions, foreign corruption, and bribes to domestic officials. It also reaches healthcare fraud, but only where private payers bear the loss (i.e., fraud under the False Claims Act (FCA) is not covered). WHIP fills that gap. It targets fraud on government healthcare and benefit programs — ground long covered by FCA whistleblowers. More than ever, companies may now face civil relators and criminal tipsters on the same facts.

Third, the corporate pathway. The Criminal Division paired its program with an amendment to its Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy. A company that receives an internal whistleblower report and reports it to DOJ within 120 days is eligible for a presumption of a declination. WHIP has no such corporate path. Its 120-day clock instead decides when officers and compliance staff may become eligible for awards themselves. Either way, the lesson for companies is the same: once an internal report comes in, the clock is running.

Implications for Companies

WHIP continues DOJ’s emphasis on targeting fraud and may sharpen DOJ’s focus on how companies handle internal complaints and the employees who raise them. Three implications stand out:

• Providers in DOJ’s priority sectors face increased scrutiny. DOJ’s decision to highlight hospice, home healthcare, day care, and special services fraud suggests that these industries will remain significant enforcement priorities. Organizations operating in these areas should review eligibility, billing, and reimbursement practices and identify programs supported by federal funding.
• Internal reports carry a meaningful timeline. Although certain categories of employees generally are ineligible for rewards, that limitation may lapse after 120 days if a concern has been reported internally. Companies should ensure that internal complaints are investigated promptly and that investigative efforts are well documented.
• Confidentiality and anti-retaliation practices may receive greater attention. DOJ has expressly stated that it may consider retaliation and restrictions on employee communications with the government when assessing cooperation. Companies should review confidentiality agreements, separation agreements, reporting procedures, and anti-retaliation policies to ensure they do not discourage lawful communications with enforcement authorities.

Looking Forward

WHIP is DOJ’s latest effort to enlist private individuals in fighting fraud. By paying awards at the charging stage rather than at the end of a case, DOJ is betting that earlier money will bring earlier — and more — tips. Whether WHIP will result in a surge in fraud referrals remains to be seen. Nevertheless, companies should expect closer scrutiny of their internal reporting practices, compliance programs, and responses to employee concerns.

For questions about WHIP or related developments, please contact the authors or any member of Arnold & Porter’s White Collar Defense & Investigations or Life Sciences & Healthcare Regulatory practice groups. 

© Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 2026 All Rights Reserved. This Blog post is intended to be a general summary of the law and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.