President Donald Trump’s plan to have all federal employees sign a non-disclosure agreement seeks to further endanger an already diminished workforce of at-will employees with eviscerated union rights and few avenues for legal protection.
The Office of Personnel Management’s proposed rulemaking could cover all new and current federal civilian employees—roughly 2 million Americans. In contrast to typical private sector NDAs (which generally prevent the disclosure of trade secrets, intellectual property, and other proprietary information) the proposed governmental NDA broadly precludes the disclosure of any information “relating to internal agency operations, personnel matters, procurement processes, or any sensitive, pre-decisional or deliberative material that is not currently publicly available.”
Although federal agencies may elect not to adopt the NDAs, the choice is more ephemeral than real. Trump’s unprecedented attempts to expand presidential power over independent administrative agencies calls into question agencies’ actual ability to opt out of the requirement.
The current version of executive power—exemplified by Trump dismantling or disabling governmental agencies whose mission or activities he dislikes, removing agency heads who he fears might not carry out his directives, and asserting unprecedented authority over the US Department of Justice by ordering criminal investigations into his adversaries—has severely curtailed, if not eliminated, the concept of truly independent administrative agencies. It’s not difficult to imagine that the administration would pressure agencies to adopt the NDA and then fire agency heads who declined to do so.
Although the proposed rulemaking describes the NDA as merely requiring federal employees to adhere to “current legal obligations to safeguard non-public, confidential or proprietary information,” its scope is far broader, and its legality rests on an exceptionally slim reed.
Notwithstanding the NDA’s nod to federal employees’ rights to disclose information to Congress, special counsel, and an agency’s inspector general about illegality, mismanagement, or abuse of authority under the Whistleblowers Protection Act, the fear of discharge or criminal prosecution for violating the broad NDA would likely chill, if not eviscerate, those rights.
It’s also difficult to reconcile the threat of discharge and civil or criminal prosecution of employees who violate an NDA with the Civil Service Reform Act’s prohibition on retaliation against employees who disclose information relating to gross mismanagement, waste of funds, abuse of authority, illegality, or danger to public health and safety.
Of paramount concern is the chilling effect an NDA likely would have on federal employees’ First Amendment rights to speak publicly on issues of public concern, including governmental policies and societal concerns related to their employment.
The proposed NDA must be viewed in relation to the Trump administration’s targeting of federal employees and workers’ rights more broadly.
Trump has signed executive orders terminating collective bargaining agreements for more than 445,000 federal workers and stripping them of collective bargaining rights in what has been called “the biggest act of union-busting in US history.”
In 2025, the administration shrunk the federal workforce by offering employees a tightly-timed buyout in exchange for their resignations and firing 56 political appointees across the government, including more than two dozen inspectors general who were responsible for investigating waste, fraud, abuse, and ethical misconduct.
The firings included two commissioners at the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the chairs of the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, and the National Labor Relations Board. During Trump’s first year back in the White House, Pew Research reported more than 348,000 people left federal employment—an 80.8% increase in attrition since 2024—and the federal workforce shrank by 10.3%.
And, just last week, Trump signed an executive order stripping job security from nearly 8,000 federal positions, expanding his authority to fire career employees who work on policy matters if they fail to implement and advocate for his policies.
Given these actions, OPM’s description of the NDA as no more than a common-sense way to raise confidentiality standards in the public sector, merely mirroring the private sector, rings hollow.
Our federal government is distinct from private industry in large measure because it must serve and be accountable to the public. Using an inordinately broad NDA on federal workers, with the threat of discharge or prosecution, is a transparent attempt to conceal federal workplace abuse and silence federal workers who dare expose it.
As with the administration’s previous attempts to weaken the federal workforce, it is likely that there will be legal challenges to Trump’s newest threat to federal workers’ rights. Those who cherish the rule of law, the First Amendment, and a democratic society should not hesitate to support those challenges when they are brought.
This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.
Author Information
Susan Davis is the managing partner of Cohen, Weiss and Simon and has more than 40 years of experience representing national, regional and local labor unions.
Law clerk Sara David contributed to this article.
Interested in writing? Review our author guidelines, and submit pitches to Insights@bloombergindustry.com.