Whistleblower protection in the Defend Trade Secrets Act:

(1) An individual shall not be held criminally or civilly liable under any Federal or State trade secret law for the disclosure of a trade secret that: (A) is made— (i) in confidence to a Federal, State, or local government official, either directly or indirectly, or to an attorney; and (ii) solely for the purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law; or (B) is made in a complaint or other document filed in a lawsuit or other proceeding, if such filing is made under seal.

Also from page 139 of Private Accountability in the Age of Artificial Intelligence:

Finally, it bears mentioning that this solution is only a partial one—it does not go far enough. For example, immunity under the DTSA would be more effective if coupled with a similar whistleblowing exception to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) (or even a limited exclusion for terms of service violations). It becomes clear, from the issues surrounding the CFAA, that a whistleblower exception might be further warranted in those circumstances, leading commentators to support the idea. In 2008, in the wake of the suicide of Aaron Swartz, U.S. Representative Zoe Lofgren proposed a bill, called “Aaron’s law” that would have excluded terms of service violations from the list of violations under the CFAA. It was never passed. And while the DTSA provides immunity for disclosures to attorneys or government officials, it does not immunize disclosures made to journalists, academics, watchdog groups, or the general public.

According to the same source, other jurisdictions have taken further steps:

Indeed, although the DTSA provisions are extraordinarily promising, it is also important to note that other jurisdictions have taken even broader steps to protect whistleblowing. For example, an equivalent EU Directive included numerous exceptions for the public disclosure of trade secrets “‘for exercising the right to freedom of expression and information . . . , including respect for freedom and pluralism of the media,’ and for revealing a ‘misconduct, wrongdoing or illegal activity, provided that the respondent acted for the purpose of protecting the general public interest.’