A coalition led by the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) is urging the Trump administration to abandon a proposal that would allow federal agencies to require employees to sign nondisclosure agreements, warning that the measure could discourage whistleblowers, limit communication with journalists, and reduce public access to information about the workings of government.
In comments submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, SPJ joined press freedom, transparency, and civil liberties organizations in opposing the proposal, arguing that federal employees are already subject to extensive laws governing classified information, privacy protections, and sensitive government records. The coalition said the proposed agreement risks creating confusion about what employees can legally disclose and could deter workers from reporting misconduct or speaking about matters of public concern.
The proposal would establish a government-wide NDA that agencies could require current employees and new hires to sign. According to OPM, the agreement is intended to reinforce existing obligations to protect sensitive information and prevent unauthorized disclosures. The agency has pointed to recent leaks involving immigration enforcement operations, law enforcement activities, and military planning as examples of why additional safeguards are needed.
Critics argue that the proposal reaches far beyond classified information and could have a chilling effect on lawful speech.
Esha Bhandari, director of the Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, called the proposal an effort to restrict press freedom.
“The First Amendment applies most strongly to government employees’ speech when the speech in question is in their private capacity and about matters of public concern,” Bhandari said in a statement.
The proposal has also drawn scrutiny from lawmakers, including Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), one of the Senate’s most prominent advocates for whistleblower protections.
In a letter to OPM and in remarks on the Senate floor, Grassley warned that the proposed agreement does not clearly incorporate federal anti-gag provisions designed to protect employees who report waste, fraud, abuse, or violations of law.
Federal law requires agencies that use nondisclosure agreements to notify employees that those agreements do not override whistleblower rights, including the right to communicate with Congress, inspectors general, and the Office of Special Counsel.
“Legally protected whistleblower disclosures aren’t leaks,” Grassley said. “Legally protected whistleblower disclosures aren’t unauthorized disclosures.”
Questions about the proposal have also surfaced in Congress, where lawmakers have sought clarification about how the NDA would interact with existing whistleblower statutes and whether federal workers could interpret the agreement as limiting rights that are protected by law.
Kevin Owen, a lawyer with Gilbert Employment Law who represents federal employees, said the proposal appears aimed at restricting communication beyond the handling of classified information.
“It appeared to be devised to stop them from speaking with the media and to prevent the spread of politically inconvenient speech that bothers the administration, or significant whistle-blower disclosures, which also are a problem for the administration,” Owen said.
Federal employees already operate under multiple restrictions governing sensitive information. Unauthorized disclosure of classified material is a crime. The Privacy Act prohibits the release of personal information maintained by the government, including Social Security numbers and medical records. Federal law also bars the disclosure of trade secrets and other confidential business information submitted to agencies. In addition, some federal agencies already maintain policies restricting employees from speaking publicly without authorization.
Supporters of the proposal contend that stronger protections are needed to prevent damaging leaks and protect sensitive government operations.
Opponents argue that existing laws already address those concerns and that new confidentiality requirements could discourage employees from exposing wrongdoing or informing the public about government actions.
“Such broad gag orders would leave the public in the dark about how the government works, Bhandari said in her statement, “preventing the kind of informed debate that is critical to democratic accountability.”
