A new controversy has erupted in U.S. federal politics after the Trump administration formally unveiled a draft proposal to mandate non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) for thousands of current and incoming federal government employees, an initiative crafted to crack down on unauthorized leaks of internal information to media outlets. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the agency that published the draft rule, argues that unapproved media leaks pose severe risks to government function: they can stifle open, honest feedback between agencies, disrupt the structured process of executive decision-making, and erode institutional trust across federal bodies.
In justifying the new policy, OPM specifically called out two high-profile leak incidents from earlier this year. The first involved alleged disclosures to The New York Times and The Washington Post about a planned U.S. military raid targeting former Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, which OPM claims put American service members’ lives at risk. However, this account has already been publicly disputed by New York Times executive editor Joe Kahn, who confirmed the outlet never held verified advance details of the operation, nor did it withhold a pre-written story at the Trump administration’s request. When contacted for this reporting, the Times stood by Kahn’s earlier statement, while the BBC had not received a response from The Washington Post as of publication.
The second incident cited by OPM was a leak that exposed the personal contact information—including home addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses—of roughly 4,500 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, a breach that directly put the agents and their families at personal safety risk.
Despite the administration’s framing of the policy as a targeted security measure, the proposal has drawn fierce pushback from federal employee unions and legal experts, who warn the NDAs are far broader than existing non-disclosure requirements and threaten core First Amendment rights for government workers. Currently, standard NDAs for federal staff only apply to employees handling classified, sensitive national security material or work tied to specific proprietary research projects. The new proposal, by contrast, would open the door for requirements across nearly all federal roles.
Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE)—the largest union representing federal workers—argued that despite the Trump administration’s claims that individual agencies can opt out of the requirement, OPM will inevitably pressure agencies to make the NDAs mandatory for all staff, and terminate any worker who refuses to sign. Kelley accused the administration of pursuing a deliberate campaign to silence career federal employees, purge long-serving public servants from government, and replace them with politically loyal appointees who will not criticize administration policy. “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 in a statement.
Legal scholars echo these concerns, warning the overly broad proposal will almost certainly face court challenges if finalized. Amy Schmitz, a law professor at The Ohio State University, noted that while limited NDAs for sensitive roles are standard practice, the scope of the current plan is unprecedented. Orly Lobel, a law professor and director of the Center for Employment & Labor Policy at the University of San Diego, warned that the vague, broad terms of the proposal create a “chilling in terrorem effect” that will discourage workers from speaking out even about illegal, unethical, wasteful, or incompetent government activity out of fear of legal action. Lobel added that the provisions could also restrict workers’ ability to leverage their professional expertise when they leave government service for new private-sector or public-sector roles, harming both labor mobility and market competition.
For its part, OPM has pushed back against criticism, arguing in its draft notice that the new NDAs do not create any new substantive restrictions on employee speech or legally protected disclosures. The agency says the agreements explicitly preserve existing whistleblower protections and all other disclosure rights granted under federal law, and only serve as a formal acknowledgment by employees of their existing legal obligation to protect non-public, confidential, and proprietary government information.
The draft proposal is currently open to a 30-day public comment period, during which organizations and members of the public can submit feedback before the rule is finalized and implemented.