In general, leaking a company's secrets is going to be a civil matter, and to the extent that it's a criminal case a prosecutor would be very unlikely to press charges if the company isn't asking them to. On the other hand leaking classified government secrets is always a criminal matter and charges are almost always going to be pressed.
Yes, but my point here largely rests on the literal definition of the word "whistleblower" itself and how the use of that word, and who uses that word, impacts how issues are framed.
The US Government has, in a seemingly bipartisan fashion, pre-emptively branded Haugen a whistleblower. They've used the word before any debate over whether or not this is a whistleblower, has taken place. This person is assumed to be acting for the public good.
Manning, Snowden and Assange were not afforded that presumption. Instead they are first presumed to be guilty of revealing state secrets. They are not presumed to be acting for the public good.
Presumption of innocence for those who serve the government's interests. Presumption of guilt for those who expose the government's wrongdoings.
