"Unauthorized disclosures of confidential government information disrupt agency operations and erode public trust," OPM wrote. The Office of Personnel Management plans to require all federal employees to sign a nondisclosure agreement that would bar most disclosures of internal agency information, a move that officials say responds to recent leaks and that critics warn could chill whistleblowing and centralize firing power inside OPM.
What OPM is proposing
In a filing set for publication in the Federal Register, OPM released a draft NDA that would require federal employees to sign a pledge barring disclosure of information about internal agency operations, personnel and procurement matters and “any sensitive, pre-decisional or deliberative material.” The draft also would require employees to report if they learn others are making such disclosures. OPM justified the step by citing reporting that disclosed proposed changes to layoff and performance rules, and internal warnings about their implementation, prior to formal publication.
Key language in the draft NDA
The draft includes an explicit statement that it does not conflict with the Whistleblower Protection Act and that whistleblowers may continue to disclose information to Congress or an agency inspector general. At the same time, OPM tied the NDA to its effort to assert governmentwide firing power through suitability determinations, linking the commitment not to disclose with suitability reviews that can remove an employee and bar rehire.
Legal and union reactions
Experts and union leaders quoted in the reporting raised immediate concerns. Kevin Owen, a partner at Gilbert Employment Law, described the whistleblower exceptions in the draft as mere “lip service,” saying internal channels can be ineffective: “Time and time again, we see circumstances where whistleblowers try to go through internal channels—either through an IG or agencies like the Office of Special Counsel—and for one reason or another, either they’re overburdened with work, or with this administration particularly, politically captured and therefore don’t do the necessary work.”
Michael Fallings, managing partner at Tully Rinckey, said much of the document’s language is “over-broad” and warned about impacts on First Amendment rights and protected activity. Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, characterized the proposal as an attempt to “silence” federal workers and said it aims “to purge the civil service of nonpartisan career employees and replace them with loyalists who won’t speak out against waste, fraud and abuse.”
How the NDA ties to suitability determinations and firing power
OPM explicitly connected the NDA to its expanding role in suitability determinations, an authority that could remove employees deemed unsuitable and bar them from being rehired for up to five years. Critics warned that, combined with OPM’s other regulatory changes, the NDA could create “a new class of federal firings, shielded from Merit Systems Protection Board oversight,” and make OPM “the sole arbiter” of whether rules are being followed. Those concerns rest on the draft’s language and OPM’s stated rationale linking communication controls with centralized personnel enforcement.
What this means for federal employees, whistleblowers, and OPM
- Federal employees: They would be asked to sign a governmentwide NDA covering deliberative and pre-decisional materials and to report colleagues who disclose such material. The draft frames non-disclosure as an expectation tied to suitability and potential future hiring eligibility.
- Whistleblowers and inspectors general: While the draft says disclosures to Congress or an agency IG remain permitted, lawyers cited in the reporting worry those channels are often ineffective. Kevin Owen argued that when internal channels fail, broader disclosure is sometimes the only way to remedy waste, fraud and abuse.
- OPM and the White House personnel agenda: The agency tied the NDA to efforts to centralize personnel authority across government via suitability determinations, a linkage critics say could concentrate power to remove employees and enforce communication rules.
OPM is opening a 30-day comment period on the draft; Michael Fallings said the NDA’s true impact will be clearer only after a final draft is released following that period. The debate captured in the filing centers on two competing claims: OPM’s stated aim to prevent “unauthorized disclosures” that it says disrupt operations, and critics’ warnings that the draft’s breadth and its connection to suitability reviews risk chilling protected speech and creating a new mechanism for removing career employees. The next concrete step is the public comment window and whatever revisions OPM makes before publishing a final rule.
