To stop leaks, the Trump administration wants federal workers to sign NDAs
The Office of Personnel Management headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Michael A. McCoy/For The Washington Post via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Michael A. McCoy/For The Washington Post via Getty Images
Stay up to date with our Up First newsletter sent every weekday morning.
The Trump administration has proposed introducing a new government-wide nondisclosure agreement, or NDA, for both new employees and those already serving.
Recent leaks about immigration enforcement actions and the secretive U.S. raid on Venezuela underscore the need for NDAs, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) writes in a proposed rule scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on Wednesday.
OPM asserts those disclosures put the lives of federal agents and members of the armed forces at risk. The document does not mention the highest-profile disclosure of the second Trump administration: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s revelation over a Signal group chat of plans for a military strike on Yemen.
The roughly 2 million people who work for the federal government are already required to safeguard confidential and proprietary information obtained on the job.
OPM says its proposal “does not create new substantive restrictions on employee speech or disclosure rights,” but instead provides a standardized way for federal workers to acknowledge and agree to their existing obligations.
But some people familiar with the inner workings of the federal government dispute that characterization.
“This seems to be a new add-on that seems to be very, very broad in nature,” says Ray Limon, who served as an attorney and human resources leader in the federal government for nearly three decades. “I’m just adding this to another tranche of measures that they’re taking to step on the throat of the employee.”
OPM did not immediately respond to NPR’s questions about the proposed rule.
NDAs used selectively throughout the federal government
NDAs are widespread in the private sector and already used selectively throughout the government, including in areas involving national security.
But the vast majority of civil servants — who handle the unclassified, routine work of the government — do not sign NDAs, Limon says, although they are bound by numerous restrictions on how they handle agency information.
According to the draft rule, agencies could decide for themselves whether to use the new agreements. Still, a government-wide push for NDAs would be unprecedented.
“It would be a big deal, absolutely,” says Limon. “It’s been very, very limited in how they’ve been used.”
According to the draft rule, the NDA would cover information “relating to internal agency operations, personnel matters, procurement processes, or any sensitive, pre-decisional or deliberative material that is not currently publicly available and should not be disclosed under applicable law.”
Limon fears such broad language would discourage federal employees from making lawful disclosures under the Whistleblower Protection Act. That law protects federal employees from retaliation if they report government wrongdoing, such as fraud, waste, or abuse.
In the draft rule, OPM says federal employees will still have the right to make whistleblower disclosures, but Limon remains wary.
“I just think it’s going to create a lot more confusion than necessary,” he says.
Public input sought on penalties
The administration has invited the public to weigh in on a number of questions related to the draft rule, including what actions the government should take against employees — new or existing — who refuse to sign an NDA.
In a separate draft rule proposed last year, OPM suggested failure to sign an NDA could result in termination or debarment from future employment with the federal government.
Federal Register has been vocal about this, good to see them staying on it.
Personnel Management has been pushing this agenda for a while now.
In other words the Office of Personnel Management headquarters in Washington, D.C. Curious to see how this develops.
The fact that the Trump administration has proposed introducing a new government-wide nondisclosure agreement, or NDA, for both new employees and those already serving really puts things into perspective.
So the bottom line is oPM asserts those disclosures put the lives of federal agents and members of the armed forces at risk. Wonder how this will land.
The detail about the roughly 2 million people who work for the federal government are already required to safeguard confidential and proprietary information obtained on the job is something people should sit with.
The Office of Personnel Management headquarters in Washington, D.C. Meanwhile the Trump administration has proposed introducing a new government-wide nondisclosure agreement, or NDA, for both new employees and those already serving.
When you look at the roughly 2 million people who work for the federal government are already required to safeguard confidential and proprietary information obtained on the job, the implications are hard to ignore.
The bigger issue here is oPM asserts those disclosures put the lives of federal agents and members of the armed forces at risk. That changes the calculation.
OPM asserts those disclosures put the lives of federal agents and members of the armed forces at risk. Meanwhile the roughly 2 million people who work for the federal government are already required to safeguard confidential and proprietary information obtained on the job.
So the bottom line is the Trump administration has proposed introducing a new government-wide nondisclosure agreement, or NDA, for both new employees and those already serving. Wonder how this will land.
Basically the Trump administration has proposed introducing a new government-wide nondisclosure agreement, or NDA, for both new employees and those already serving. What matters is whether anything changes because of it.
The detail about recent leaks about immigration enforcement actions and the secretive U.S is something people should sit with.
Basically the Office of Personnel Management headquarters in Washington, D.C. What matters is whether anything changes because of it.
Personnel Management is in a tough spot here, curious how they navigate it.