The Trump administration wants to roll out a uniform nondisclosure agreement across the federal government that would bar employees from sharing internal government information, citing the need to stop leaks to media organizations.<\/p>\n
Each agency could determine whether to adopt the agreement, which would require federal workers not to disclose \u201cnonpublic, confidential or proprietary\u201d information and to notify the agency of any theft or loss of such information, according to a proposal released on Tuesday<\/a> by the Office of Personnel Management. Agencies could ask both current employees and new hires to sign the agreement.<\/p>\n Employees who breach the terms could face potential disciplinary action, as well as civil and criminal penalties, according to a draft agreement<\/a>, although it did not state which civil and criminal statutes would apply to disclosures not already covered under federal law.<\/p>\n The Trump administration said the proposed nondisclosure agreement would not add additional restrictions on employee speech or disclosures. But the broadly worded agreement could go beyond laws that already govern the improper release of classified information and protected personal details held by the government.<\/p>\n Lawyers who represent public workers said the requirement could be vulnerable to legal challenges on First Amendment grounds, noting that a government employee\u2019s speech is protected if the person is speaking as a private citizen.<\/p>\n The push to impose the agreement on federal workers comes as the Trump administration has sought to crack down on unauthorized disclosures to journalists, including through leak investigations<\/a>. Advocates for federal workers said it could create additional fear among government employees, who have already been buffeted by major job cuts and other changes since President Trump returned to office.<\/p>\n In its proposal, the administration said that authorized whistle-blower disclosures to inspectors general, the Office of Special Counsel and Congress would remain intact.<\/p>\n The nondisclosure agreement \u201cis designed to provide agencies with a standardized mechanism for employees to acknowledge and agree to comply with obligations that already exist under law and regulation,\u201d the personnel office wrote. The public has 30 days to comment on the proposed draft.<\/p>\n Scott Kupor, the office\u2019s director, said the policy is similar to how employees are treated in the private sector, an argument he has made for several of the administration\u2019s rules for the federal work force.<\/p>\n \u201cIn much of the private sector, employees handling sensitive business or customer information are routinely required to sign confidentiality agreements, and the federal government should not be held to a lower standard,\u201d Mr. Kupor said in a statement.<\/p>\n Esha Bhandari, the director of the Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, called the move an attempt to restrict press freedom.<\/p>\n \u201cThe First Amendment applies most strongly to government employees\u2019 speech when the speech in question is in their private capacity and about matters of public concern,\u201d she said in a statement.<\/p>\n She added, \u201cSuch broad gag orders would leave the public in the dark about how the government works, preventing the kind of informed debate that is critical to democratic accountability.\u201d<\/p>\n Kevin Owen, a lawyer with Gilbert Employment Law who represents federal workers, said the agreement appeared to be devised to stop them from speaking with the media and to prevent the spread of \u201cpolitically inconvenient speech that bothers the administration, or significant whistle-blower disclosures, which also are a problem for the administration.\u201d<\/p>\n It is already a crime for federal employees to improperly share classified information. Federal employees are also bound by the Privacy Act, which prohibits the disclosure of personal information held by the government, such as Social Security numbers or medical records. There is also a federal law that bans the release of a company\u2019s trade secrets, such as information that is shared with the government as part of a regulatory requirement.<\/p>\n And some agencies already have policies in place to restrict employees from speaking without authorization. During the first Trump administration, some agencies issued widespread gag orders<\/a>. Last year, the Labor Department threatened employees with legal consequences if they spoke to journalists, ProPublica reported<\/a> at the time.<\/p>\n Mr. Trump, who has used nondisclosure agreements throughout his business career, has also had campaign staff members sign such pledges, and he has sued people who violated them. In some cases, courts have ruled in favor<\/a> of his former employees<\/a>.<\/p>\n In its notice Tuesday, the personnel office cited specific examples of unauthorized disclosures that the government says underpin the need for the new policy, including news accounts detailing planned immigration operations and the secret military raid that led to the capture of Venezuela\u2019s leader, Nicol\u00e1s Maduro.<\/p>\n The notice asserted that reporting obtained by The New York Times and The Washington Post about the Maduro raid put members of the military at risk, and that the news organizations delayed publication until after the operation to protect American lives.<\/p>\n Joe Kahn, the executive editor of The Times, has previously said<\/a> that The Times did not have verified details before the raid and did not withhold publication of a story at the request of the Trump administration. The Post did not respond to a request for comment.<\/p>\n Orly Lobel, a law professor and director of the Center for Employment and Labor Policy at the University of San Diego, said there were already laws and regulations that prohibit federal employees from disclosing such information.<\/p>\n \u201cThe concern is that these kind of overly broad provisions create chilling interim effects, both in silencing employees when they see unethical or simply wasteful or incompetent government behavior,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n As part of its rationale for the new policy, the personnel office pointed to the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in late 2024 to require staff members<\/a> to sign nondisclosure agreements.<\/p>\n