The Trump administration has introduced a proposal for a government-wide nondisclosure agreement (NDA) that would apply to federal workers, aiming to curb the sharing of confidential government information. This initiative is part of a broader effort to prevent internal leaks to media outlets.
Details of the Proposal
The draft notice, which was posted to the Federal Register by the Office of Personnel Management, outlines the NDA’s purpose to ensure that both current and future federal employees agree to protect non-public, confidential, or proprietary information obtained through their official duties. The proposal is set to be published and will undergo a 30-day comment period.
According to the draft, federal agencies have the option to implement the NDA. This move follows previous actions by the Trump administration, such as the Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s office requiring Pentagon officials to sign NDAs for certain projects and initiatives.
Concerns and Reactions
The proposal has sparked controversy, with the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the largest union representing federal workers, criticizing it as an attempt to silence employees. The union expressed concerns that the administration might pressure agencies to enforce the NDA, potentially leading to the dismissal of those who refuse to comply.
Everett Kelley, AFGE’s national president, stated that the proposed NDA could be used to purge nonpartisan career employees and replace them with loyalists. He emphasized that federal employees retain their First Amendment rights and that the public deserves transparency about government actions.
Context and Implications
The draft cites instances of unauthorized disclosures to major news outlets, such as the New York Times and Washington Post, regarding a U.S. military operation in Venezuela. Additionally, it mentions a federal staffer leaking personal information of Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel, which allegedly endangered their safety.
The proposal defines confidential information broadly, including internal agency operations and sensitive material not publicly available. While it claims not to impose new restrictions or affect whistleblower rights, the union argues that the scope of information covered is excessively broad.
Original reporting: KEYT (Ventura/Santa Barbara) — read the source article.
