Responding to LDAD's call for action:
There is also still time to submit comments to last week's Action Alert in response to the Office of Personnel Management's proposal that could result in all federal employees being required to sign a Nondisclosure Agreement. The comment period for this OPM Federal Register Notice closes on June 26, 2026. Here, too, LDAD's Action Alert and Briefing Materials provide comprehensive information to support your response."
---
I submitted:
---
Along with every American PATRIOT, I oppose any rule requiring federal employees to sign a Non Disclosure Agreement covering unclassified, non‑privileged, non‑personally identifiable information. Such a rule would be both unconstitutional and unwise.
Existing protections already govern classified, privileged, and personally identifiable information. The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905), and Federal Records Act regulations at 36 C.F.R. 1222.24(a)(6) already prohibit unauthorized disclosure of PII and other protected information. Nothing in the proposed rule fills a legitimate gap.
Public ownership of government information is a core democratic principle. The public pays for government work and is entitled to unclassified, non‑privileged, non‑PII information. There is no valid reason to threaten employees for sharing what the public already owns.
The proposed definition of “Confidential Government Information” is unworkably broad. The phrase “non‑public” is especially problematic. Any information that is unclassified, non‑privileged, and non‑PII is potentially public. Treating such information as inherently confidential contradicts the presumption of openness that Congress has repeatedly written into law.
Executive power is limited to faithfully executing the laws. Attempts to hide unclassified information often signal an intention to exceed lawful authority or to conceal that it has already been exceeded. OPM’s own examples, such as procurement processes, illustrate why transparency is essential. Procurement has long been an area where secrecy enables waste, fraud, and abuse.
Congressional oversight is a constitutional duty. Any NDA that restricts employee communication with Congress is unconstitutional on its face. Congress cannot oversee what it is forbidden to learn.
Recruiting and retaining talent matters. Threat based secrecy drives away qualified public servants and leaves the government less capable of doing the people’s business.
The incidents OPM cites do not support the proposed rule. Leaks of ICE employee PII are already illegal under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a), the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905), and Federal Records Act regulations at 36 C.F.R. 1222.24(a)(6). Leaks of military operations are already prohibited under 18 U.S.C. 793 and 18 U.S.C. 798, as well as Department of Defense OPSEC regulations and Articles 92 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. These examples involve conduct that is already criminal. They do not justify imposing a new NDA on unclassified, non‑privileged, non‑PII information that the public is entitled to receive.
For these reasons and more, I strongly oppose the proposed rule as unconstitutional, unnecessary, and a threat to liberty.
