By admin 
Truthout is a vital news source and a living history of political struggle. If you think our work is valuable, support us with a donation of any size.
Read more Protests Erupt at New Jersey Detention Center in Support of Hunger Striking Detainees
The Trump administration has proposed a new policy that could require federal government employees to sign nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) in an attempt to limit damaging or embarrassing information from leaking to the press.
Such leaks are a normal part of every presidential administration, as are attempts by presidents and their cabinets to limit what information gets out. But free speech and press advocates say that the use of NDAs — a tactic President Donald Trump has utilized for years within his private and corporate life — is unusually harsh and likely illegal.
by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and is expected to be published in the Federal Register on Wednesday. It requests public comment over the next month on plans to allow federal agencies to use NDAs “for both new and existing employees.”
The NDAs would also affect former government employees, who would need “written permission from an authorized agency official” after leaving their job to speak to journalists regarding information they may want to share.
“OPM believes that a governmentwide NDA form will promote consistency across Government, better protect confidential information, and better inform Federal employees of their rights and obligations regarding confidential information,” .
However, the document itself seems contradictory at times. While it heavily implies that employees should be restricted from sharing confidential government information, the document admits that there are “narrow circumstances” in which a federal employee can be protected, if they share certain items for specific purposes.
If implemented, federal agencies could decide whether to implement NDA policies, allowing them to block “non-public, confidential, or proprietary information” from being shared with journalists, even if they access information that is in the public interest.
Read more Residents of Polluted Areas Say Trump’s Regulatory Rollbacks Are “Getting Really Scary”
OPM has tried to justify the need for NDAs by referencing past “unauthorized disclosures”, including those made to newspapers regarding the U.S. raid in Venezuela earlier this year, claiming that the lives of “members of the armed forces” were put at risk. New York Times Executive Editor Joe Kahn has disputed that telling of the situation.
“Contrary to some claims, The Times did not have verified details about the pending operation to capture [Venezuelan President Nicolas] Maduro or a story prepared,” Kahn said in previous comments.
Indeed, the Trump administration’s crackdown on leaks has primarily focused on limiting embarrassing information, including details about the war in Iran that have suggested a disorganized approach with no clear path to ending the conflict.
The draft notice suggests that violations of NDA agreements would entitle the U.S. to all “royalties” that employees receive from divulging such information. Other potential punishments are unclear, but could be detailed more after the 30-day comment period.
Lauren Harper, Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) chair on Government Secrecy, decried the proposal in a statement shared with Truthout.
“The proposal by the ‘most transparent administration in history’ that millions of federal employees sign a blanket NDA is not just absurd, it’s unnecessary and dangerously secretive,” Harper said, adding that the policy “would kneecap whistleblower protections, undermine the First Amendment, and wrongly inhibit the public’s right to know.”
“Trying to force the entire federal government to adopt the Trump organization’s aggressive use of NDAs won’t make anybody safer and won’t improve agency processes. Its sole intent would be to protect the administration from the leak of embarrassing, politically damaging, or unlawful information,” Harper elaborated.
Read more Congressional Black Caucus Demands Corporations Oppose Voting Rights Rollbacks