The Trump administration is advancing a plan for federal agencies to adopt standardized non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) with employees. This move aims to curb the leaking of internal discussions to the media.
During a recent Zoom interview, Scott Cooper, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), stated, “This is going through a full regulatory process so people can give notice and comments. We’ll respond to all of them as well… I think it’s crucial for preserving deliberative decision-making in government.”
The proposed NDAs would serve as templates for agencies, focusing on ensuring employees recognize their responsibilities regarding confidentiality. Critics are raising concerns, questioning whether these agreements genuinely protect whistleblowers or instead suppress employee voices. Recent incidents like the Venezuela attack leak and issues surrounding ICE agents have intensified discussions around internal leaks.
Cooper highlighted the challenges posed by leaks in a simple scenario: “We had a meeting today… There were 10 people in the room… It’s tough to manage discussions when nine of those individuals decide to inform the media about the particulars of that meeting.” He emphasized that such situations hinder rational conversations and effective organization management.
Federal workers already have obligations to protect classified information. OPM asserts that the new NDA would not impose additional restrictions but would instead clarify existing legal responsibilities. The intent is to foster rather than stifle frank discussions, with the hope that employees will voice their opinions without fearing media attention.
Some critics accuse the administration of broadening control over internal communications to stifle dissent. Kevin Owen, a partner at Gilbert Employment Law, expressed concerns that OPM is overreaching by centralizing power over federal employees, aligning closely with the White House.
Notably, the proposed agreement maintains employees’ rights to whistleblower protections under federal law. Kupor contended that the aim isn’t to exclude or suppress voices but rather to ensure that internal deliberations remain confidential until decisions are finalized. He posited that post-decision, the information could be accessed through Freedom of Information Act requests.
He conceded that while the NDA proposal had been considered previously, the urgency today is compounded by the growing media landscape and its potential for leaks. Kupor also acknowledged that the proposal encourages transparency in discussions while upholding the organization’s integrity against potential media breaches.
As the administration already grapples with legal challenges related to its policies, Kupor anticipates that the NDA initiative might invite similar scrutiny. “There are many lawyers and organizations looking to challenge anything that doesn’t align with their interests,” he remarked.
The public will have the opportunity to comment on the proposal until June 26, according to OPM.
