Trump Administration Proposes NDAs for Federal Employees to Limit Leaks

The Trump administration has proposed a new rule requiring all federal employees, both new and current, to sign nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) aimed at curbing unauthorized leaks of sensitive government information. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) posted a draft notice in the Federal Register on Tuesday, initiating a 30-day public comment period on the proposal.

According to the OPM, the NDA is intended to promote consistency across federal agencies, better protect confidential information, and clearly inform employees of their rights and obligations. The draft states that the NDA “does not create new substantive restrictions on employee speech or disclosure rights” and explicitly preserves employees’ rights to make disclosures authorized by law, including protected whistleblower disclosures.

The administration cited concerns about unauthorized disclosures that have disrupted interagency trust and decision-making. Examples include leaks related to internal agency communications on rulemaking and policy development, as well as unauthorized disclosures about planned immigration enforcement actions by FBI and Department of Homeland Security employees. The notice referenced media reports about the U.S. raid in Venezuela in January, although New York Times executive editor Joe Kahn denied that the Times had prior verified details or withheld publication at the administration’s request.

Violations of the NDA could result in civil and criminal penalties. However, the NDA would not restrict legally protected disclosures to Congress, Inspectors General, or other designated individuals under the Whistleblower Protection Act.

Legal experts and advocacy groups have expressed skepticism about the proposal’s intent. Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor and CBS News legal contributor, said the impact depends on the NDA’s final scope. “If the NDA is an attempt to silence almost all federal employees and infringe on their First Amendment rights and their whistleblower protections, then we have a problem,” she said. Levinson emphasized that federal employees retain First Amendment protections when speaking as private citizens on matters of public concern.

Mark Zaid, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney and co-founder of Whistleblower Aid, noted that while the NDA language does not create new legal obligations or limit lawful whistleblowing, the effort appears designed to intimidate employees and prevent unauthorized but lawful disclosures that have often resulted in negative publicity for the administration.

The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) opposes the proposal. Everett Kelley, AFGE’s national president, called it a continuation of efforts to silence federal employees. He warned that although OPM claims the NDA would be optional for agencies, there would be pressure to make it mandatory and consequences for employees who refuse to sign. “Federal employees do not surrender their First Amendment rights when they accept federal employment, and the public has a right to know about this administration’s abuses,” Kelley said.

OPM Director Scott Kupor defended the proposal, comparing it to confidentiality agreements commonly required in the private sector. “Americans should be able to trust that their personal data and sensitive government information are being handled responsibly,” Kupor said. “This proposal reinforces accountability across the federal workforce while helping agencies better protect against unauthorized disclosures.”

The rule will be officially published on Wednesday, and agencies will have discretion on whether to implement the NDA. If adopted, the NDA would be administered during onboarding for new hires and to current employees.