Trump administration wants federal workers to sign NDAs

The Trump administration is proposing non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) for US government workers in an attempt to curb leaks to the press.

The federal personnel office published a draft of the proposed agreement for new and current federal workers with a notice that says media leaks "risk chilling candid interagency feedback, disrupting orderly decision-making, and weakening trust within and among Federal agencies".

The Trump administration has said disclosures to the media ahead of the US raid in Venezuela risked US lives.

Experts say the agreements expand on those typical for workers handling sensitive information and could draw legal challenges. One union warns they could chill free speech.

The US Office of Personnel Management, or OPM, said the NDAs do not create "new substantive restrictions on employee speech or disclosure rights" and "expressly" preserve employees' "rights to make disclosures authorized by law, including protected whistleblower disclosures".

"The form is intended to document Federal employees' acknowledgment of, and agreement to comply with, current legal obligations to safeguard non-public, confidential, or proprietary information," the notice said.

The public will have 30 days to submit feedback on the proposed agreement before it can be finalised and deployed.

It's already drawing criticism from the largest union of federal workers. Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees said he expects they will be mandatory across the government, even as the Trump administration claims agencies can opt not to require employees sign them.

"OPM will pressure agencies to make the NDA mandatory and then fire employees who refuse to sign it," Kelley asserted.

He accused the administration of trying to "silence" federal employees and get rid of "career employees and replace them with loyalists who won't speak out".

"Federal employees do not surrender their First Amendment rights when they accept federal employment, and the public has a right to know about this administration's abuses," Kelley said.

Personnel officials cited several instances when they said unauthorised information was leaked to the press. The OPM notice said earlier this year, The New York Times and The Washington Post received unauthorised disclosures from federal employees about the upcoming US raid on Venezuela.

"These leaks put the lives of members of the armed forces at risk, leading news organizations to delay 'publishing what they knew to avoid endangering US troops'", the notice states, citing an article from Semafor.

But New York Times executive editor Joe Kahn has contested that his outlet had advance information about the raid.

"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 wrote days after the raid occurred.

When reached for comment, the New York Times pointed the BBC to Kahn's previous statement. The BBC has also reached out to the Washington Post.

OPM also said that earlier this year, a federal employee disclosed the personal information - including addresses, phone numbers, and emails - of 4,500 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in a leak that "jeopardized the safety of the agents".

Amy Schmitz, a law professor at The Ohio State University, told the BBC that while it is common for government workers to sign NDAs, they are usually tied to classified information, research, and specific projects.

"The proposal appears much broader and some have speculated that it will draw litigation," Schmitz said.

Orly Lobel, a law professor and the director of the Center for Employment & Labor Policy at the University of San Diego, told the BBC in an email that the proposed NDA risks scaring workers into silence out of fear of being sued and infringing on their rights even after they leave the government.

"The concern is that these kind of overly broad provisions create chilling in terrorem effects, both in silencing employees when they see unethical or simply wasteful or incompetent government behavior, and in creating a purported risk of using their knowledge and skills when they leave the government agency and seek other related employment," Lobel wrote.

"So both frontiers of free speech/accountability and free competition/mobility may suffer."