Trump's New NDA Proposal Could Punish Federal Workers Who Speak to Journalists — Here's How

The Trump administration has proposed a government-wide non-disclosure agreement that would require all current and future federal employees to sign a sweeping gag order — one that carries criminal penalties, financial clawbacks, and restrictions that follow workers even after they leave government service. The Office of Personnel Management, which serves as the human resources office for the US government, said it wants to create an NDA form for federal agencies to use for both new and existing employees, with the stated goal of preventing them from sharing confidential information with journalists.

The draft notice was posted to the Federal Register on Tuesday and will be open for a 30-day public comment period. It uses an expansive definition of privileged information that goes beyond typical classified and unclassified designations. Civil liberties groups and legal experts have since raised alarms over the proposal's breadth and its implications for press freedom.

What Workers Could Face

The draft blocks employees from sharing 'non-public, confidential, or proprietary information' or 'any sensitive, pre-decisional or deliberative material that is not currently publicly available and should not be disclosed under applicable law.'

Under the terms of the draft, the administration reserves the right to pursue both civil and criminal penalties against any employee who violates the contract. A strict financial clawback mechanism is also included, under which the US government would be legally entitled to all 'royalties' that an employee receives as a result of disclosing information in violation of the NDA.

The restrictions extend indefinitely past an employee's tenure. Former employees who fail to obtain written permission from an authorised agency official before speaking to journalists about any information the Trump administration deems 'confidential' would face the same civil and criminal liabilities as current staff.

Why OPM Says It's Necessary

In the draft notice, OPM cited a number of high-profile leaks, including 'unauthorised disclosures' said to have been made to the New York Times and The Washington Post about the US raid on Venezuela in January that captured President Nicolás Maduro. OPM said the leaks 'put the lives of members of the armed forces at risk, leading news organisations to delay publishing what they knew to avoid endangering US troops.'

New York Times Executive Editor Joe Kahn previously disputed that claim directly. 'Contrary to some claims, however, The Times did not have verified details about the pending operation to capture Maduro or a story prepared, nor did we withhold publication at the request of the Trump administration,' Kahn said in a January explainer published on the Times's website.

OPM spokesperson McLaurine Pinover said the move is 'rooted in concerns that unauthorised disclosures of sensitive government information are disrupting agency operations and eroding trust across government.'

The Legal and Civil Liberties Challenge

Esha Bhandari, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, said the government cannot 'muzzle' government workers with NDAs, arguing it would be a violation of the First Amendment. 'Such 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 democracy,' she said.

There are existing legal limits to the use of NDAs in government. Under a federal law that protects whistleblowers, these agreements cannot limit a civil servant's ability to expose waste, fraud and abuse.

The proposed rule would not apply to federal contractors, even though they have been responsible for several notable leaks, including the public disclosure of tax records of wealthy Americans. Don Kettl, professor emeritus and former dean of the University of Maryland School of Public Policy, told Yahoo News that 'there's so much work done by contractors that a one-sided NDA might not accomplish much.'

Not the First Time

The Trump administration has previously used non-disclosure agreements to keep a close hold on certain information. The Pentagon imposed NDAs and random polygraph testing as part of a broader effort to root out leaks and those deemed insufficiently loyal. The Department of Veterans Affairs also required officials working on layoff plans to sign agreements, keeping much of its workforce in the dark about mass firing plans, which were later cancelled.

The proposal represents the most expansive attempt yet by the Trump administration to control what federal employees can say — and to whom. Should agencies adopt the draft NDA, millions of workers could face a lifetime restriction on speaking freely to journalists, raising foundational questions about press freedom, government accountability, and the constitutional limits of executive power over the federal workforce.