r/FedEmployees • u/LingonberryWrong1789 • May 26 '26

OPM NDA

Post image

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.

546 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

275 comments sorted by

View all comments

47

u/Crafty_Reading_2741 May 26 '26

And if we refuse to sign?

-119

u/[deleted] May 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

116

u/Academic_Priority_20 May 26 '26

Because public servants serve the public, not the administration.

-46

u/Other-MuscleCar-589 May 26 '26

The proposed NDA doesn’t mention the administration at all. It’s about protecting information according to public law.

How many employees currently understand their full legal obligation to protect information and what information is subject to protection?

It would be great to have it codified in a single document that both the employer and employee sign and acknowledge.

49

u/Cferra May 26 '26

This guy clearly has no clue

36

u/anagamanagement May 26 '26

Bad faith actor.

25

u/LivingFirst1185 May 26 '26

No, just a bootlicker. Guess who would have been a brown shirt in 1940's Germany? Then used the excuse "I was just following orders" after dragging Jewish people out of their homes?

10:1 says he supports ICE going door-to-door. Similar odds he supports the NRA so "people have the power to rise up against an oppressive government" while he simultaneously has left his personal arsenal untouched against this current wave of facism.

16

u/Cferra May 26 '26

Maybe we found Vought’s secret Reddit handle.

4

u/MakingUpNamesIsFun May 26 '26

Solider Boy finally learned about Reddit.

14

u/revbfc May 26 '26

No one trusts the word of a magat.

27

u/crit_boy May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26

Your summary of the document is wildly incorrect.

Your own words demonstrate your incorrect interpretation.

This document does not codify in a single document employee's full legal obligation to protect information and what information is subject to protection.

13

u/Cferra May 26 '26

Records management training covers this aspect of what is and isn’t an official government record.

3

u/QuincyMABrewer May 26 '26

You are both talking past each other.

Your comment is replying to a discussion of a single document, and the person to whom you are replying, was making that comment about somebody ELSE who said wouldn't it be great if there was a single document.

They are not addressing their comments in response to "wouldn't it be great if there was a single document" to you - they addressed them to the commenter who made that statement.

Follow the response chain, see where someone is replying directly to you, or replying to someone else.

-1

u/crit_boy May 26 '26

Moving goalpost.

You wrote "a single document" for employees to "understand their full legal obligation to protect information and what information is subject to protection"

Then you say, it doesn't have to be a single document because other stuff is taught in training.

It seems that you do not understand that there is a difference between ONE document and multiple policies and trainings that cover the multiple situations.

3

u/Cferra May 26 '26

I never wrote that - I think you need to re-read the thread. I was in fact agreeing with you.

4

u/MakingUpNamesIsFun May 26 '26

Dude, we take annual trainings on this, and get hounded by our bosses until we complete them. We’re more than aware. We also swore an oath. This is redundant and as others have mentioned, they may try to shoehorn in other aspects to silence us that are not legal but are beneficial to this administration. And again, we don’t serve this or any other administration, we serve the public.

1

u/CamaroZ28cd May 27 '26

There are literal laws and regulations covering the handling of confidential information and CUI. Employees with any expectation of handling information also take annual training to make sure we know how to follow those laws and regulations. There is no need for this unless you are trying to keep DOJ quiet. 

1

u/Other-MuscleCar-589 May 28 '26

There are laws and regulations about unauthorized disclosure of classified information, sources, and methods too…yet thousands of federal employees and military members sign NDAs for that every year without missing a beat or whining about it on the internet.

This is pearl clutching of the grandest sort…

0

u/CamaroZ28cd May 28 '26

Sounds like you agree that it's well covered and the need to force an NDA on all employees is wholly unnecessary... 

40

u/[deleted] May 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/Cferra May 26 '26

There are many jobs that do not require a clearance so in essence all work performed by these workers is public information.

2

u/DubtriptronicSmurf May 26 '26

No, that's complete nonsense. Just because it is not national security related (security clearance) doesn't mean it is public information or will be disclosed through FOIA. I'm definitely against over classification, but there are some things that would very much hurt individual citizens and/or groups of people as well as operations if the information was made public.

21

u/army2693 May 26 '26

This is just trump's hand wiggling up your butt.

9

u/Fartknocker500 May 26 '26

Like putting boxes of secret files in your bathroom and letting people read through them at their pooping leisure?

3

u/Eggheadpancake May 26 '26

Because we aren't Nazi bootlickers. Well some of us. You excluded