Nearly 6,000 federal workers living in Wyoming may soon be required to sign non-disclosure agreements to keep their jobs with the U.S. government.
That’s a proposal that the Trump administration’s Office of Personnel Management released this week. The NDA, which would apply to new and existing employees, is open to public comment until June 26.
One employee who could be forced to sign the agreement if it moves forward told WyoFile on Wednesday that the NDA would “just be another layer” to Trump’s efforts to clamp down on the free flow of information about federal government activities.
“I don’t understand this,” said the employee, who’s on staff with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “I think the public and the agencies benefit from sharing more and speaking freely. I don’t think secrecy improves decision making or people doing the right thing.”
WyoFile granted anonymity because the employee did not have permission to comment on the policy and feared retaliation. The Fish and Wildlife Service has not yet given its workforce any guidance about the proposed NDA, the employee said.
The NDA intends to “safeguard non-public, confidential, or proprietary information, created or obtained” through the “official duties” of federal government workers, according to the Office of Personnel Management.
The NDA would be “governmentwide.” The federal government’s civilian workforce in Wyoming numbers 5,857 employees, according to OPM data. That’s down 16% from 6,941 workers the previous fiscal year, the result of Trump administration directives and policies that have shrunk the federal workforce to the smallest size in over a decade.
Other Wyoming-based federal workers not part of those tallies could also be subject to the NDA. OPM workforce data excludes active military personnel, the U.S. Postal Service, most of the judicial branch and others.
The proposed NDA is part of a Trump administration crackdown on leaks to the media.
The OPM noted “several recent instances” where internal agency communications related to rulemaking and policy development were disclosed without authorization. It also discussed specific instances in which federal employees at the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security disclosed information about planned immigration enforcement actions without authorization.
In one case, The New York Times and The Washington Post received unauthorized information on the U.S. raid on Venezuela this past January and delayed “publishing what they knew to avoid endangering U.S. troops,” the OPM request for comment said.
A Washington Post spokesperson declined to comment to the Associated Press.
Charles Stadtlander, executive director of Media Relations and Communications for the Times, said in an email that the paper had extensive reporting on operations targeting Venezuela and preparations for land-based military operations. “Contrary to some claims, however, The Times did not have verified details about the pending operation to capture Maduro or a story prepared, nor did we withhold publication at the request of the Trump administration.”
Ferreting out leaks that the administration deems harmful to its messaging has been a priority across multiple agencies since President Donald Trump returned to the White House. As part of that crackdown, the FBI in January seized the electronic devices of a Washington Post reporter, a move that alarmed media organizations and advocates of press freedom.
Attorneys who specialize in federal employment law say that the proposed NDA is overly broad and appears to prohibit the free flow of information about the federal government’s activities to the general public.
“The parameters are unclear,” said Michael Fallings, managing partner at the Austin, Texas-based law firm Tully Rinckey. “It says you can’t discuss anything about government communications, about decisions being made, about work being done.”
Federal workforce attorneys and union groups are worried that the NDA amounts to “restricted speech,” Fallings said.
“The parameters are unclear. It says you can’t discuss anything about government communications, about decisions being made, about work being done.”
Michael Fallings, attorney
Michael L. Vogelsang Jr., an attorney at the Employment Law Group, said he has questions, among them: “What gap is an NDA supposed to fill that doesn’t already exist?”
He noted that statutes already exist regarding the leaking of classified and sensitive information. There’s also a law passed by Congress, he noted, that prohibits employers from implementing or enforcing an NDA.
Vogelsang added: “So Congress has already said NDAs are a no-go. So how can OPM make a regulation that violates the law?”
The American Federation of Government Employees National President Everett Kelley said in a statement that OPM’s proposed rule is part of a continuing effort to silence federal employees.
“This proposed NDA is another attempt by the administration to purge the civil service of nonpartisan career employees and replace them with loyalists who won’t speak out against waste, fraud, and abuse,” Kelley said.
Joe Knouff, OPM’s suitability director, is listed in the Federal Register notice as the contact for more information. He did not respond to WyoFile’s interview request Wednesday.
