Cincinnati, Ohio – Ohio Congressman Greg Landsman and Illinois Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi are leading a group of Democratic lawmakers in pressing the Office of Personnel Management for answers about a proposal that would require all federal employees to sign nondisclosure agreements.
The lawmakers sent a letter to Office of Personnel Management Director Scott Kupor expressing concern that the proposed rule could limit transparency within the federal government and discourage workers from reporting misconduct. The effort was joined by 42 additional Democratic members of Congress.
According to the lawmakers, the proposal goes beyond existing protections for classified and sensitive information and instead could discourage lawful whistleblowing while limiting public oversight of government actions.
Lawmakers question purpose of proposed rule
In the letter, the members argued that the proposed government-wide requirement could weaken accountability rather than improve it.
They wrote that existing federal laws, regulations, and agency policies already govern how employees handle classified, confidential, and protected information. Because of those existing safeguards, the lawmakers questioned why an additional mandatory nondisclosure agreement would be necessary.
The letter states, “The proposed rule is nothing more than another attempt to intimidate, silence, politicize, and demolish the federal workforce, and hide this Administration’s waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption from the American people.”
The lawmakers further argued that mandatory nondisclosure agreements “will only block lawful whistleblowing and disclosures, undermine government transparency and accountability, and erode the independence and integrity of the nonpartisan civil service.”
The letter also points to several actions taken by the Trump administration that the lawmakers say demonstrate a broader effort to reshape the federal workforce. Among the examples cited are the revocation of collective bargaining rights for more than one million federal employees, the reclassification of thousands of civil service positions into political appointments, the removal of at least 21 inspectors general, and the dismissal or departure of nearly half a million federal workers.
The members also referenced previous public remarks made by President Donald Trump criticizing federal employees, as well as comments by Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought regarding federal workers.
Five questions directed to the Office of Personnel Management
The lawmakers asked Director Kupor to respond to five specific questions about how the proposed policy would operate.
Among their concerns is whether the rule would conflict with existing whistleblower protections, anti-retaliation laws, the First Amendment, or other federal statutes.
The members also requested clarification about how the Office of Personnel Management would define broad terms contained in the proposal, including “non-public,” “confidential,” “proprietary information,” “sensitive,” “pre-decisional,” and “deliberative” materials.
In addition, they asked what penalties federal employees could face if they refused to sign the agreement or were accused of violating it. They also requested information about how long the agreements would remain legally binding.
Finally, the lawmakers sought an explanation of how federal employees would be protected from retaliation if they lawfully reported waste, fraud, abuse, corruption, or other wrongdoing.
The letter emphasizes that federal workers often play an essential role in bringing concerns to Congress, inspectors general, and the public. According to the lawmakers, preserving those protections is necessary to maintain the independence of the civil service.
The members concluded by urging the Office of Personnel Management to reconsider the proposal.
“Federal workers play a critical role in holding the government accountable and bringing waste, fraud, abuse, corruption, or wrongdoing to the attention of Congress, Inspectors General, and the American people. Their rights and protections, along with the integrity and independence of the federal workforce, must be upheld.”
The lawmakers ended the letter by stating, “Forcing all federal workers to sign indefinite and vague NDAs is illegal and unacceptable. We urge OPM to listen to the serious concerns raised during the public comment period of this rule, and reverse course immediately.”
The Office of Personnel Management has been asked to provide responses to the questions raised by the members of Congress, who said they are seeking greater clarity about the proposal and its potential effects on federal employees and government accountability.
