Letter Seeks Answers Regarding Proposed NDAs for Federal Employees

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) recently proposed obliging all federal employees to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) that would prohibit them from divulging “confidential” information in most cases.

As Government Executive reported, experts were quick to warn that the move would “violate workers’ First Amendment rights and statutes aimed at protecting whistleblowers from retaliation.”

U.S. Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi expressed similar concerns in a June 9 letter to OPM Director Scott Kupor, writing that requiring federal workers to sign NDAs “risks encouraging employees to remain silent rather than exercising their lawful rights.”

As currently drafted, the OPM proposal “threatens constitutional rights, undermines whistleblower protections and weakens the public accountability that Americans deserve from their government,” he wrote. “Federal employees do not forfeit their constitutional rights upon entering the civil service.”

Krishnamoorthi acknowledged that narrowly tailored NDAs have historically been used to protect classified information “and other legitimately sensitive government materials.”

He noted, however, that “several legal experts” have criticized OPM’s proposal as being overly broad, “because it prohibits the disclosure of broadly defined ‘confidential’ information while providing insufficient clarity regarding the boundaries of protected speech.”

For example, the proposed NDA will leave federal employees uncertain whether communications with Congress, Inspectors General, law enforcement or other authorized oversight bodies “could jeopardize or seriously damage their careers,” Krishnamoorthi wrote.

“That uncertainty is particularly troubling,” he said, “because federal law not only protects certain disclosures, but in some circumstances relies upon federal employees to report evidence of waste, fraud, abuse, misconduct or violations of law.”

Krishnamoorthi went on to “demand answers” to a series of questions no later than June 24, 2026. For instance:

What legal analysis has OPM conducted regarding the NDA’s compatibility with the First Amendment and the Whistleblower Protection Act?

How does OPM define “confidential” information for purposes of this agreement, and what safeguards exist to prevent overly broad interpretation or enforcement?

What protections will exist for employees who decline to sign the NDA if agencies choose to adopt it?

Ultimately, the “ambiguity” of OPM’s proposal “risks encouraging employees to remain silent rather than exercising their lawful rights,” Krishnamoorthi wrote, “thereby chilling speech that is essential to government transparency, accountability and effective congressional oversight.”