President Donald Trump wants everyone in government to sign a nondisclosure agreement. Federal employees see it as another attempt by his administration to intimidate them.
The Office of Personnel Management on Wednesday published in the Federal Register a proposal to have civil servants sign a governmentwide NDA. The measure is designed to have new and existing employees acknowledge and agree with laws already in place to safeguard “non-public, confidential, or proprietary information.”
If those employees break the NDA — or refuse to sign it — they could be fired by their agencies.
The new push is part of an ongoing effort by the Trump administration to crack down on leaks surrounding policy moves and to further realign the federal workforce. The proposal cites unauthorized leaks to outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post tied to military operations.
Federal workers are already well aware of the restrictions on what they can share with the public, said Stephanie Rapp-Tully, a partner at law firm Tully Rinckey.
“Government employees can’t just share work information willy-nilly,” said Rapp-Tully, an expert in federal employment law. “But the way that this is written — and the potential repercussions that could come from this — could have a chilling effect, absolutely, on government employees who feel scared to become a whistleblower.”
POLITICO’s E&E News talked to 13 federal employees about the governmentwide NDA proposal. Granted anonymity because they fear retaliation, some said they wouldn’t sign the agreement, or would at least seek counsel from their unions before doing so.
One EPA employee said staff there attend annual training sessions on how to protect all kinds of information that can’t be released outside the agency without authorization. They said the proposal was “a reaffirmation of existing law,” which indicates it is “superfluous and meant to intimidate.”
“We are well aware of our duties, and this rule is just meant to try and suppress our freedom to speak on matters of public concern,” said the employee.
A Department of Energy staffer said the notice appears designed to instill fear within the federal workforce and discourage leaks.
“OPM’s goal doesn’t seem to be developing robust rules for protecting nonpublic information, but rather, establishing the authority for OPM to punish feds in a more unilateral way,” said the staffer.
The notice shows how concerned the Trump administration is about leaks tied to proposed actions, the staffer added. “The White House has placed barriers on interagency review for some high-profile actions, including not sharing draft text and only allowing in-person briefings in some cases,” they said.
A Department of the Interior staffer questioned how the proposal would affect whistleblower protections or the ability of federal workers to communicate with Congress.
“My concern is that this adds another element that would dissuade potential employees from federal service,” they said. “Even if you’re compelled by the mission, does this outweigh your desire to work for the government?”
Asked for reaction to the proposed governmentwide NDA, a second EPA employee said, “I’m left thinking we’re about to start getting asked to do a whole lot more illegal shit.”
EPA and Interior’s press offices referred questions for this story to OPM. The Energy Department didn’t respond to a request for comment.
In a statement Tuesday, OPM Director Scott Kupor pointed to how businesses have managed their employees that handle sensitive data, saying they are required to sign such agreements.
“The federal government should not be held to a lower standard,” Kupor said. “This proposal reinforces accountability across the federal workforce while helping agencies better protect against unauthorized disclosures.”
‘Removal from federal service’
The nondisclosure agreement would set another bar for federal employees to keep their jobs.
“Signing the NDA is voluntary,” the draft document said. “However, failure to sign may result in removal from federal service and potential debarment for refusal to certify compliance with applicable non-disclosure obligations.”
In addition, violating the agreement could result in “a disciplinary or suitability action,” up to and including termination by one’s agency, according to the draft.
The proposal said numerous leaks to the press are why a governmentwide NDA is necessary. Its footnotes included news stories about OPM regulations under development as well as immigration enforcement raids and the secret U.S. military raid to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
“The problem is so widespread that the Supreme Court itself has instituted the use of nondisclosure agreements,” the proposal said, pointing to POLITICO’s report from 2022 about Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the leaked Supreme Court opinion that upended abortion rights.
Pat Parenteau, emeritus professor at the Vermont Law and Graduate School, said the proposal could deter federal employees from disclosing information that’s not privileged or protected — including internal agency documents — that can show laws like the Clean Water Act or Endangered Species Act are being violated.
“They’re trying to persuade, intimidate, threaten employees who are disclosing deliberative process information that discloses attempts by agencies to hide facts that the public is entitled to,” Parenteau said.
That, in turn, could make it “difficult for the courts, and of course public interest litigants, to use the courts to uncover illegal actions of the government,” he said.
Nick Bednar, an associate law professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, said the government can already discipline employees who disclose confidential information.
“The Trump administration likely believes NDAs are necessary to reduce leaks regarding mismanagement within the agencies,” Bednar said. “The greatest concern is that the NDA will chill genuine whistleblowers from reporting illegal activity to Congress, inspectors general, or other actors capable of responding to such allegations.”
Government unions blasted the planned governmentwide NDA.
Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, the country’s biggest federal worker union, said in a statement, “OPM continues its efforts to silence federal employees.”
AFGE Council 238, EPA’s largest union, “opposes any attempt to impose broad gag orders on federal workers under the guise of ‘confidentiality,’” according to Justin Chen, its president.
“This is an effort, plain and simple, to expand the ‘suitability’ doctrine — that only those individuals who are ‘suitable’ can be hired and retained as federal employees,” said Don Kettl, professor emeritus and former dean of the University of Maryland School of Public Policy.
Trump is already seeking to expand suitability standards for hiring and retaining government staff. Other rules developed by his administration would end some layoff safeguards, limit performance ratings and weaken protections for probationary employees.
“The administration has gradually been working on expanding its removal powers, and the balance of civil service protections is being reduced as the power to fire is being increased,” Kettl said.
“This is a very big deal — one more big deal, in fact, on top of others,” such as Schedule Policy/Career, he added, which is a new classification that would make career employees more easily fireable.
OPM is accepting public comments on the planned NDA, which must be received on or before June 26.
A third EPA employee said they were not discouraged by the proposal.
“If forced, I will sign their illegal nondisclosure agreement and continue to leak to the press,” the employee said. “Despite what they may think of us, we will not let our democracy go that easily.”
Contact Kevin Bogardus on the encrypted messaging app Signal at KevinBogardus.89 and Hannah Northey at North1.11.
