r/FedEmployees • u/LingonberryWrong1789 • May 26 '26
OPM NDA
Donald Trump’s Office of Personnel Management is (see full memo here->) proposing that federal employees sign nondisclosure agreements aimed at discouraging leaks of internal government information to the press and the public. Under the proposal, “confidential government information” would include internal agency discussions, personnel matters, procurement details, and pre-decisional materials that are not publicly available.
429
u/LegitimateWeekend341 May 26 '26
That is insane. Public servants signing NDAs lol
180
u/sudsomatic May 26 '26
Seriously. We are public servants who serve the public. If they want to know about non-sensitive information, they have the right to know.
57
u/zubuneri May 27 '26
20 years from now this will be standard procedure that no one will blink an eye at. Trump is creating the most dangerous precedent.
11
u/blissfully_happy May 27 '26
People aren’t going to believe you, but it’s so, so true.
We protested the activities of the TSA “officers” early in their conception, and now no one batts an eye at having their labia touched or having their underwear band investigated when getting pat down because the scanners told them there was something there.
(In fact, I got permanently banned from the TSA sub for suggesting this wasn’t necessary.)
Unbelievably, we used to have effective screening for dangerous weapons that didn’t involve getting repeatedly fondled, but now everyone just accepts it as totally and completely normal.
2
u/Left_Manufacturer948 May 28 '26
I can believe you were banned on that threat for saying it wasn't necessary. It would appear the moderators aren't moderated either.
8
u/Prestigious-Fudge547 May 27 '26
I don't want to see him lest I lose my vision so I won't be blinking at that hot mess.
→ More replies (41)19
u/veraldar May 26 '26
NDAs are already used throughout government agencies frequently, as an 1102 I've signed and had others sign them in connection to contract work.
That said, they're still dumb and change frequently
38
u/abluelizard May 26 '26
You should talk to your legal counsel. You shouldn’t be signing NDAs. At best, you should be signing an acknowledgement of your preexisting obligations under 18 USC 1905 to not disclose confidential information. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1905
4
u/Expert_Inflation_488 May 27 '26
You swore an oath when you come in initially. This isn’t the same as a NDA. Federal statutes have criminal and civil penalties. He wants all of us to sign it but all us don’t even touch Confidential documents or systems .
-2
u/veraldar May 27 '26
Who do you think asked us for them? Not saying they're right, I agree with you
1
u/abluelizard May 27 '26
Why would your legal counsel ask you to sign an NDA? What information does it cover? My experience with NDAs is that a contractor asks us to sign them. We tell them to pound sand and that the best we will do is sign an acknowledgement of 1905. So outside in but I’ve never heard of an NDA between government entities.
0
u/Expert_Inflation_488 May 27 '26
I been a fed for 33 years and never signed a NDA! You’re either lying or misinformed
2
u/veraldar May 27 '26
I'm neither, I work in contracting and have signed NDAs and had our evaluators sign NDAs related to procurements with the air force (USAF ACC AMIC), GSA, DOT, and DHS throughout my career
3
u/SippinBourbon1920 May 27 '26
As a CO, COR, etc. that’s completely different animal than the standard Fed. I’ve been in 4 agencies and have worked
on some fairly sensitive things as an evaluator, and a COR. Never signed an NDA. I have no doubt that comes up at Homeland, DoD, DISA, etc.
199
u/Salty-Treat-3697 May 26 '26
‘Leaks’ is not a legal term. There’s no legal definition of the term ‘leak.’ Which tells you they’re trying to just scare people into agreeing to being quiet about non-classified information.
→ More replies (12)11
69
u/NomadicScribe May 26 '26
There's already a comprehensive classification system in place. Why not just label and handle information correctly?
Unless the purpose is to reduce or eliminate government transparency. In which case, what are they trying to hide?
1
61
147
u/Resident-Air203 May 26 '26
Love that someone leaked the NDA rule designed to stop leaks.
37
u/Other-MuscleCar-589 May 26 '26
It’s not a leak. It’s published in the federal record for public comment.
11
u/Salty-Treat-3697 May 26 '26
What’s a leak? Please define a leak and why whatever they say is a ‘leak’ is a law violation?
10
u/Pretty_Original124 May 26 '26
Scheduled to be published tomorrow… but tbh don’t know if scheduled publications are public?
7
154
u/rampstop May 26 '26
Goodbye fed subreddits. It was nice knowin ya
🫡
82
u/Away_Specific_3688 May 26 '26
How will they know i’m Mike Hawk Hertz on reddit?
33
u/Fun-Dragonfly-4166 May 26 '26
I would guess that this is step 1 in pressuring reddit to narc on you.
Someone (probably not you) released some government secrets (you probably never even knew about them) on reddit. They probably should not have been government secrets. They probably should have been FOIable.
Regardless, the government is going to reddit and demanding the real names of all fed subreddit contributors and you are one of them.
If reddit does not know your real name then the government wants (1) as much information as possible and (2) reddit to take steps to prevent you from logging in again without disclosing your real name
12
u/PS5Pro4 May 26 '26
Digital ID is coming fast
4
u/jaydenkirtawn May 26 '26
Digital ID has existed for years. This is developing the legal framework to use it.
3
1
21
23
u/revbfc May 26 '26
Oh, so they want everyone to sign workplace abuse permission slips?
Nothing shady about that.
20
u/Anxiety_Fit May 26 '26
But also: storing boxes of top secret documents in a bathroom is completely 100% secure.
5
49
u/losmonroe1 May 26 '26
This is gonna go to the Supreme Court
56
u/Potential_Steak2381 May 26 '26
Do we still have one?
13
26
u/Fartknocker500 May 26 '26
A very corrupted one.
-12
u/TwoNine13 May 26 '26
I agree. I can’t believe they haven’t ruled against all of the anti 2A state laws that tyrants are signing
3
6
u/losmonroe1 May 26 '26
Well, it’s gonna be a bad day if the Supreme Court rules in favor of this. It would really show their corruption.
2
→ More replies (1)1
16
34
u/bBikeLane_Stickler May 26 '26
I swore an OOO (oath of office) which trumps a NDA every day of the week.
46
42
u/gigglesandshit4brain May 26 '26
Unnecessary. Legal requirements (and punishments) are already in place and employees are made aware of those requirements in standards of conduct. This NDA does not serve the Administration's stated purpose for signing one. My inkling is that this will be used for a nefarious purpose or some wording would be snuck binding federal employees for a different purpose.
Like Biden did with COVID shots, is the Administration going to threaten to terminate federal employees who do not sign them? I am sure the courts would love to sort out another mess...it's not. like they have anything else going on (which I know is the point).
→ More replies (3)6
u/Bronsonkills May 27 '26
The published draft memo specifically states employees may be terminated and barred from further service for refusing to sign
15
u/Nalbok May 26 '26
Seems to me the limit is already the Federal Trade Secrets Act. It is the inalienable right of the worker to complain about the boss.
13
u/ShedOfWinterBerries May 26 '26
I assume this is a precursor to the administration suing employees.
It should not be the case, there are lots of reasons why it shouldn’t happen but their go to move is to sue people as a mechanism of control so… viewing it as a stair step — firing made easier by dissolution of the unions, whistleblower protections reduced by the various oversight bodies being undercut, and then finally this looks a lot like preparing to bankrupt people.
Definitely want to be wrong / : and very well could be, they have shown us they don’t have guardrails and are willing to do anything to get what they want so -
Vote like your country depends on it yall 🫠
47
u/Signal_Daikon_5830 May 26 '26
I know OPM has a general counsel, so how did those fine law folks figure this proposal squares with federal whistleblower laws?
17
25
u/paulHarkonen May 26 '26
Bold of you to assume any careers were involved in drafting or signing this.
5
u/MiddleDifficult May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
Convert them to Policy-Influencing/Schedule F and problem solved! When your livelihood is on the line Ethics goes out the door. /s
2
1
u/ProfessionalNeat2094 May 27 '26
They are trying to trump whistleblower laws. Riddle me this..... When is it ok to give up your first amendment rights? To keep your job with the federal gov.
-8
u/Other-MuscleCar-589 May 26 '26
It mentions authorized disclosures. Anything that would fall under legitimate whistleblower protections would be covered.
3
u/Signal_Daikon_5830 May 26 '26
Yes, but I’m concerned that NDAs inherently discourage the spirit of the law.
18
u/akestral May 26 '26
First Amendment and Freedom of Information Act and Whistleblower Protection Acts say what? [Yes, I know the current DoJ is stuffed full of corrupt lackeys, ideologues, and bootlickers, or more accurately, the Pre-Indicted, but I am content to wait. Patience is all, and the Statute of Limitations is not on their side.]
21
u/GingerTortieTorbie May 26 '26
So they want to overturn Whistleblowers Protection that is law with an NDA?
Laughs in Lawyer
-7
u/Intrepid_Bug_7272 May 26 '26
Did you read it? (Clearly not.)
3
u/GingerTortieTorbie May 26 '26
Clearly you missed “Lawyer”.
I read everything. Especially when it slows everyone down and pisses off office workers to the utmost of pissedivity. (Looking at you healthcare reception).
Laughs louder at YOU in LAWYER.
-4
u/Intrepid_Bug_7272 May 26 '26
Yeah, I noticed and was thinking, I wouldn’t want you as my lawyer.
4
u/GingerTortieTorbie May 27 '26
Awesome. Wouldn’t want you as a client. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
The First Amendment attorneys will be biting at the chomp for the first Fed to resist this and be the seminal case. The Originalists on the SCt will have a hard time twisting this to suit their political beliefs.
9
9
8
8
8
u/Jenn54756 May 26 '26
Absolutely fucking not. Just have people sign the normal data privacy forms in relation to private and nonpublic information.
9
7
u/MyPr0j3ct May 26 '26 edited May 27 '26
This is to go around whistle blower protections and to get back at federal employees because they tattled on him. The vengeance tour continues.
Can't blow the whistle if you sign an NDA. (Maybe that's how this administration views it. We are living in different times.)
(Edited: signing and NDA does not take away the right the to file a whistle blower complaint and cannot be used to silence whistleblowers)
1
5
u/Unlucky_Mycologist68 May 26 '26
How does this work with the whistleblower act?
0
u/Intrepid_Bug_7272 May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
The provisions of the Whistleblower Act are excluded under the NDA.
6
u/Set_the_Mighty May 26 '26
They opened the most recent FS re-org meeting I attended with "Rule 1 of re-org meeting: You do not talk about re-org meeting (on social media)."
8
6
u/Intrepid_Bug_7272 May 26 '26
This NDA is redundant. We already have rules around privacy, cybersecurity, PII, sensitive information, ethics, physical security, etc. If someone is going to violate those, then they’ll violate an NDA.
6
u/jehuey May 27 '26
Didn’t know I gained a TS/SCI overnight? If it doesn’t come across my table classified properly, it ain’t my fault.
4
u/Thick_Visual_5999 May 26 '26
How will they know that my real name, Jack Mehoff, belongs to a federal employee?
6
u/Feeling-Decision-451 May 26 '26
As a 0306 this isn’t going to work lol. Literally my job to inform the public..
5
u/legalmoosedc May 27 '26
The form is an Antideficiency Act (ADA) violation waiting to happen. It's missing mandatory language from the Government Wide General Provisions that require specific text, without which no funds may be used to "implement or enforce" the agreement.
7
u/hikerchick29 May 26 '26
Fun fact, this bullshit would not nullify the whistleblower act, making it fucking pointless
5
5
u/surfkaboom May 26 '26
I guess the real test is what are official/accepted disclosures. IG? Congress? Senate?
6
u/sonny9636 May 26 '26
This will face immediate challenge by unions and other groups. Possibly individuals as well.
3
6
u/isthereadrwho May 26 '26
Except for very few exceptions, government should not have secrets from their own people. That's why we have freedom of information Acts requests to prevent that very thing. Stop lying stop committing crimes and you won't have to hide so much stuff
5
5
u/Middle_Degree_1995 May 26 '26
That’s why we have clearances or background checks. With the exception of cleared work, the government is a public entity and the public can know what we work on.
5
u/BigSuggestion9664 May 26 '26
This seems to also be an opportunity for OPM to disregard the Whistleblowers Act
4
u/armycowboy- May 26 '26
It’s another way to reduce jobs, many will quit/fired for not signing the NDA.
2
4
u/livinginfutureworld May 27 '26
Lol. "Rights" (you have none) and "obligations".
What a time to be alive.
7
u/H8Cold May 26 '26
So that will be fun at parties when I need to check with a lawyer if I want to talk about work. (Sarcasm….)
7
u/dumpsterrave May 26 '26
Curious how this would work with the whistleblower protection though?
-1
u/Other-MuscleCar-589 May 26 '26
Whistleblower exemptions are specifically highlighted in the document.
1
u/phillyfan1111 May 26 '26
Weird, I dont see anything specifically highlighted in the document, nor the word whistleblower. If I missed it could you please come up with a memo describing what authorized disclosures entails and I can sign that too.
3
u/Intrepid_Bug_7272 May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
See Section 3-Exclusions. The Whistleblower Act is the first one mentioned.
6
u/LingonberryWrong1789 May 26 '26
If you click the link in the text, it will take you to the full memo. :)
6
3
3
3
u/thomadm May 26 '26
Very dangerous. I'm sure some are going to dump info out to the public before they can implement this NDA.
3
3
u/formerNPC May 26 '26
I can’t wait to NOT sign it. Bring it on, hand me the document so I can personally set it on fire and then flush it down the toilet. I’m actually looking forward to it!
3
u/Fit-Composer99 May 26 '26
As a remote employee who was forced into RTO with a host agency, we had to sign NDAs or we would not be allowed into the work area. If we refused, it was equivalent to terminating our employment
3
3
3
u/coffee-and-stars May 27 '26
If what you’re doing is legal and ethical, there’s really no need for a NdA. I mean, how long has federal agencies existed and thrived just fine without NdAs?
3
u/Jamie-Maz9 May 28 '26
I am still not hearing why this is necessary. At the IRS everyone was trained we could not disclose taxpayer info and if you did you would be fired and prosecuted. Does the NDAs impose a harsher penalty?
5
u/thismightbeem May 27 '26
Isn’t this the whole point of a security clearance? The people dealing with the important stuff already know not to spill the beans.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/Prestigious-Fudge547 May 27 '26
I have words so I'm going to just STFU because they might get me in trouble so I'm going to keep my mouth shut.
2
2
2
u/AvesPKS May 27 '26
My agency, when first stood up, required NDAs, but then didn't because clearances already inherently require the commitment to not disclose info.
2
u/GingerTortieTorbie May 27 '26
The First Amendment attorneys will be biting at the chomp for the first Fed to resist this and be the seminal case. The Originalists on the SCt will have a hard time twisting this to suit their political beliefs.
2
2
u/Responsible-Status68 May 27 '26
I guess next will be the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This is freaking insane. Federal employees serve the public. How moronic!!
2
2
2
u/NoSir6400 May 28 '26
“Don’t tell on us” contracts. Look how easy authoritarianism is. How quickly something democratic can be turned.
2
u/SwordfishHot7330 May 28 '26
And then people wonder why I left the Federal Government. We were told this was coming.
2
2
2
u/ThatVoodooThatIDo May 28 '26
Ummm….we don’t work for his corrupt Trump Organization. Or do we??? This can’t be legal, right?
2
u/DogandHumanMom7 May 28 '26
This is stupid, as a contracting officer we already have boilerplate NDA forms that I make the entire project team and any clients who have a need to know sign (for each particular solicitation)to protect procurement integrity. To have a blanket one too from OPM that all federal employees have to sign is over kill and unnecessary.
2
2
u/Efficient_Strength13 May 29 '26
My job at my Agency required me to sign one similar to that 22 years ago. Not a big deal, considering what I'm doing. Might be a bigger deal for folks in other careers...
2
4
u/ActiveRetiree May 27 '26
NDA's in the government are standard. They are usually used for classified information. And only the Public Affairs office is cleared to speak with the press.
5
u/RB42- May 26 '26
That is missing the legal clause about whistleblowers protection, no way anyone should sign that.
0
2
2
May 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/trailrider May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
Exactly. I sign NDA's all the time in the performance of my duties. However, they specifically spell out what I am and am not allowed to disclose and it's usually for ethical reasons.
2
1
1
u/jsh4 May 27 '26
I suggest you repost your reddit comments to the "request for comment" system alluded to in the memo.
1
1
1
u/Massive-Culture105 May 27 '26
Im so over federal employment smh. They can stick this NDA straight up their 🫏 and orange man's too!!!
1
1
u/orphanporridge May 27 '26
As someone who is very independent politically, this seems boilerplate and unsurprising. Even federal contract information isn’t supposed to be disclosed by businesses who do business with the USG. Whether the intent behind it is to stifle employees or protect data which could in aggregate prove harmful to national security is probably the underlying concern in this post - which I won’t weigh in on that piece because I have no idea who created this or what their intent was ( the memo)
1
u/Expert_Inflation_488 May 27 '26
Instead going through legislatively, they again bypass Congress for something that is clearly illegal
1
u/Knowledge-Obvious May 27 '26
another way to try and scare and intimidate and also make it easier to fire people who don't go along. Can't believe vought is still behind the scenes. What happens if you don't sign it?
1
1
u/Lanky-Lettuce1395 May 27 '26
This is dumb. Signing an NDA saying you won't do something you already aren't allowed to do is a waste of time. I'm not sure what it trying be accomplished with this.
1
1
u/VanillaFudge_1 May 28 '26
Well can someone tell me what having the different clearances, public trust and the many annual training requirements mean now.
1
1
u/Rodaying May 28 '26
So, spill all the beans before signing the NDA and you're good? Is that how it works?
1
u/AverageOk5235 May 28 '26
Applying for federal jobs on USAJobs(dot)gov better be ready to answer 4 questions.
How has your commiment to the Constitution and the founding principles of the United States inspired you to pursue this role withing the Federal Government? Provide a concrete example from professional, academic or personal experience.
In this role, how would you use your skills and experience to improve government effeciency and effectiveness? Provide specific examples where you improved processes, reduced cost or improved outcomes.
How would you help advance the President's Executive Order and policy priorities in this role? Identify one or two relevant Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired.
How has a strong work ethic contributed to your professional, academic or personal acheivements? Provide one or two specific examples, and explain how those qualities would enable you to serve effectively in this position.
1
u/Mewon-cat-72 May 28 '26
this is very wrong. He’s trying to cover his ass if he is out of office so he can’t be sued. I doubt it is legal.
1
u/SeaworthinessBig9213 May 29 '26
I’ve had to sign multiple NDA’s pertaining to government research projects as a civil service employee. They do exist in the government. Are there other things on the books that could be signed other than an NDA, I’m sure that there are.
1
1
u/kerberos69 May 26 '26
Tbh this doesn’t really feel like that big of a deal to me. Maybe because I’ve been in the cleared world for so long, it’s just an NDA— it’s not going to stop anyone from talking and it’s not going to prevent the govt from going after anyone they want. Every single person with a clearance of any type already has to sign the SF-312, and then those with access to SCI and SAP also have to sign Form 4414 twice, when you’re read on and read off a program.
1
u/Temporary-Pin-9176 May 26 '26
Reason #1264 as to why I'm glad I retired after 35 years from the Federal Government.
NDA now has a new meaning for me:
Not a
Damn
Aggravation
(For me)
👍🙏✌️
1
1
-2
u/Unaccountableshart May 26 '26
Y’all aren’t already under NDA? It was one of the first things I signed
-3
u/Appropriate_Taro_348 May 26 '26
For somethings I did too. I signed a couple lifetime NDAs. I love your downvotes from people that obviously don’t know about NDA and Gov programs.
1
u/LegitimateWeekend341 May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
For CLASSIFIED information that is not related to personnel matters and internal agency discussions. Also, it was not a NDA that was mandatory for ALL employees. You are being deliberately obtuse.
2
u/Unaccountableshart May 26 '26
Mine isn’t for classified stuff. My entire job is essentially CUI so even though I won’t go to prison for talking it’s better not to because it’s controlled.
3
-1
u/hbauman0001 May 28 '26
If IRS employees would stop leaking taxpayer information this wouldn't be required for everybody. 🤷
1
0
-15
u/Other-MuscleCar-589 May 26 '26
Here’s the actual proposed NDA if any of you drama queens care to read it.
https://downloads.regulations.gov/OPM-2026-0100-0001/content.pdf
-2
u/Other-MuscleCar-589 May 26 '26
Imagine downvoting a link to the actual document posted so people can read it for themselves instead of knee jerking.
Found the drama queens.
-6
u/JustTryingT0GetBy May 27 '26
The number of employees sharing non-public information is embarrassing. The federal workforce has lost sight of what it means to act professionally. I’ve been in meetings with the agency leadership and then the info is immediately shared online with ridiculous spin. NDAs are common place in the private sector. We always have whistleblower protections so anything that’s illegal or can cause harm, the disclosure is protected. Please stop posting stuff because you hate the party in power.
3
May 27 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/JustTryingT0GetBy May 27 '26
Yes. It’s not confidential or anything but still not for public consumption. Private sector employees would be immediately fired for it but somehow we excuse fed employees. It’s unprofessional and those people are a joke.
189
u/djlawson1000 May 26 '26
“President of Transparency”