Muzzling America’s workforce

How to comment right now on the proposed NDA for civil servants

Dear Civil Servant,

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) recently proposed that agencies effectively require their employees and new hires to sign a standard nondisclosure agreement (NDA) that would restrict them from speaking up about a wide number of topics.

The proposed NDA would restrict civil servants from speaking outside government about “Confidential Government Information” — but it defines that term incredibly broadly:

all non-public, confidential, or proprietary information, to include, but not be limited to, information relating to internal agency operations, personnel matters, procurement processes, personally identifiable information (PII), personal health information (PHI), or any sensitive, pre-decisional or deliberative material that is not currently publicly available and should not be disclosed under applicable law, whether or not marked as such.

This proposal would almost certainly chill public employees from engaging in constitutionally protected speech. If you’re a civil servant trying to avoid violating your NDA, this vague definition makes it hard to figure out where the line is. You can’t disclose “non-public . . . information relating to internal agency operations,” for example. Does this mean a USPS worker can’t talk about his route? A doctor at the VA can’t speak publicly about how veterans receive care? An office worker can’t tell her husband about who’s organizing the goodbye gift for Ralph’s retirement? With this wildly broad definition, most public employees are likely to at least pause before speaking. Many are likely to self-censor and stay silent to avoid risking their job — and that’s an issue for all of us, and for our democracy.

Read on for information on how to comment directly on OPM’s proposal.

Silencing the peoples’ workforce

Trump tends to treat public employees like they work for him personally, ordering them to go after his enemies, punishing them for lawful work investigating him or his allies, and subjecting new hires to loyalty tests. But that’s not what the civil service is for. This is America’s workforce, and civil servants swear an oath to the Constitution. Most go to work everyday to serve people — the people — not one man. The NDA proposal runs headlong into American values. It functions as a universal gag order on thousands of citizens and keeps the public in the dark about their government’s functioning. In a hallmark of authoritarianism, this NDA proposal would ensure that only a few individuals determine what information the public is allowed to receive.

Read more — The “patriot” in the cubicle next door

Many critics of this proposal have highlighted how the NDAs would curb whistleblowing and hamper civil servants’ ability to report waste, fraud, and abuse. Ensuring functional channels for this kind of reporting is critical — the public needs to know if data is being manipulated, if the administration’s cronies are suddenly receiving plum contracts, or if the government’s enforcement powers are being used to retaliate against people. But the public also deserves to know how the government works, period. Whether that’s reducing disaster workers at FEMA, changing how we file taxes, rewriting nuclear safety rules, or anything else. Because this is how democracies work: People participate in the project of self-governance, and to do that, people need to know what the government is doing.

Generally speaking, the First Amendment protects civil servants’ right to speak out on matters of public concern, and it also protects the public’s right to receive that information. Coercing public employees to surrender a vital constitutional right is not just bad for the employees — it’s devastating for the public. By muzzling those who observe and understand government operations, the public is kept in the dark. The proposed NDA would allow a small handful of officials to be prepublication gatekeepers of information about government activities and public affairs. It’s not good policy, and we don’t believe it’s legal.

OPM’s insistence that this new NDA requirement is really not a big deal is belied by the ways it could chill the speech of thousands of civil servants. By its own account, the requirement wouldn’t change the rules the federal workforce operates under, but even OPM can’t seem to explain why the requirement would be necessary if that were the case. OPM points to a handful of leaking incidents as proof an NDA is needed. At the same time, it claims that the NDA does not create new substantive restrictions — it is simply a “standardized mechanism for employees to acknowledge and agree to comply with obligations that already exist under law and regulation . . . .”

The fear and chilled speech — which some see as a bug — might actually be a feature to this administration. It famously came in saying that it wanted to put civil servants “in trauma” and has repeatedly retaliated against public workers for their speech, including for speaking on issues of public concern, like food assistance during the 2025 government shutdown. Given the administration’s track record and how endemic and widespread its First Amendment deficiencies are, this proposal looks like an attempt to further silence civil servants and assert total control over the federal bureaucracy.

The nitty gritty: how the NDA proposal and “suitability” work together

Here are some of the basics of how the NDA proposal would work:

• OPM would create a standard NDA that agencies could choose to require their new and current employees to sign as a condition of keeping their job. (The proposal claims that signing the NDAs would be “voluntary” but also warns that failure to sign may result in being fired and/or being barred from future federal employment for a period of time.)

• The NDA would forbid civil servants from speaking publicly about “confidential information” unless specifically authorized to do so, incorporating the expansive and vague definition of “confidential information” described above.

• The obligation to stay silent about “confidential information” would last for five years after the end of federal employment. It could last for decades if a person remained employed, and would follow former civil servants into future jobs and lives after government employment ended.

• If the government accused a current or former employee of violating the NDA they signed, it could subject them to a disciplinary or suitability action that could result in removal, pursue civil penalties, or attempt to criminally prosecute them.

One of this president’s favorite tools for asserting total control is, of course, firing people. So it shouldn’t be surprising that being fired is a risk of refusing or violating the NDA, but this proposal goes beyond a run-of-the-mill threat of termination.

Read more — Are you on the list?

What the administration proposes here is that it not only makes the rules — it interprets them, determines who violates them, and doles out the punishment it sees fit. It does this by creating an interaction between the proposed NDA and OPM’s proposed rule on Suitability and Fitness, which it is in the process of finalizing. We wrote about the suitability proposal previously, but as a refresher: The American public is protected against a politicized civil service in part via “tenure” protections for civil servants, and there are rules about how and why they can be fired. The proposed Suitability and Fitness regulation would circumvent these protections by creating a fast-track firing process. It would give OPM — the same agency that created this proposed NDA — the power to decide when a civil servant is “unsuitable” for continued federal employment, with no meaningful avenue to appeal that decision. A bad suitability determination could lead to being fired or even barred from future federal employment for a number of years.

Can you guess what one of the new criteria for being found “unsuitable” for federal employment is? “Refusal to certify compliance with, and/or adhere to, non-disclosure agreements.” OPM has already given itself the power to punish civil servants for refusing to sign an NDA, or for (in OPM’s own view) violating one. Now they are creating the NDA. If you are a civil servant and refuse to sign the NDA, or if the administration accuses you of violating it, OPM gets to decide if you actually violated the NDA and how you should be punished for that. The lack of any standards for interpreting or enforcing the NDA creates an open invitation for discriminatory and arbitrary enforcement. And the lack of an independent decision-maker, external oversight of the personnel decision, or meaningful appeal right means that enforcement decisions would lack transparency and due process. This is why the NDA proposal is so chilling: The threats of noncompliance are real, severe, and meaningfully unreviewable. Such schemes are unconstitutional. Yet this rule seeks to make submission to an unconstitutional arrangement a condition of employment.

How to comment on the proposed change

Right now, OPM’s proposed NDA requirement is just that — a proposal. They are in the process of soliciting public comments on that proposal, which they are supposed to consider when deciding on the final course of action. This process is meant to include the voice of the people in governmental decision-making, so there is no need to be an expert to submit a comment.

Maybe you’re a former or current civil servant who can speak to how this would affect your own speech. Maybe you work in an industry that interfaces with the government or regularly hires former employees, and you could speak to the impact on your industry. Maybe you’re just a regular person who believes your government’s workings shouldn’t be shrouded in secrecy. You can speak out.

The deadline for commenting is June 26, 2026, which is soon. But along with our friends at Democracy Forward’s Civil Service Strong, we’ve got your back. Here’s what you can do:

1. Review Democracy Forward’s guide to the proposed change, which does a deep dive on some substantive issues with the measure.

   • You can also view the docket for this proposal, where you can review the comments that have already been submitted and the proposed NDA itself.

2. Review our explainer on “What Makes an Effective Public Comment”

3. If you want an assist, follow our step-by-step guides to submitting a comment, available here for individual commenters or organizational commenters

4. Submit that comment! You can submit a public comment on the proposal here.

   • This proposal is referred to as: Confidential Government Information Nondisclosure Agreement, Docket ID OPM-2026-0100.

What We’re Reading

• Trump wants all federal employees to sign NDAs | Don Moynihan

• The Cost of Cutting American Science | Partnership for Public Service

• Policy Brief: Safeguarding the US Federal Government Workforce | Karen Baehler

This publication should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Protect Democracy. This publication also contains hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Protect Democracy does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.