SPJ Coalition Urges Trump Administration to Withdraw Federal Worker NDA Proposal

June 11, 2026

The Trump administration is facing opposition to a proposed government-wide nondisclosure agreement that would apply to federal employees. A coalition of press freedom and civil liberties organizations, led by the Society of Professional Journalists, contends that the measure could discourage whistleblowers and restrict public access to government information, despite existing laws already covering classified and sensitive material. The Office of Personnel Management defends the proposal as necessary to prevent unauthorized leaks of sensitive operations, citing recent disclosures involving immigration, law enforcement, and military activities.

Who is affected

Federal employees (current workers and new hires who would be required to sign the NDA)
Whistleblowers seeking to report government misconduct
Journalists who rely on federal employees as sources
The general public who depends on government transparency
Press freedom organizations (Society of Professional Journalists and coalition members)
Civil liberties organizations (American Civil Liberties Union)
Congressional oversight bodies, inspectors general, and the Office of Special Counsel

What action is being taken

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management is proposing the government-wide NDA
The SPJ-led coalition is submitting comments opposing the proposal to the Office of Personnel Management
Senator Chuck Grassley is sending letters to OPM and making remarks on the Senate floor warning about the proposal
Congressional lawmakers are seeking clarification about how the NDA would interact with existing whistleblower statutes

Why it matters

This proposal has significant implications for government accountability and democratic transparency. It could create confusion about what federal employees can legally disclose and deter workers from reporting waste, fraud, abuse, or violations of law—activities that are legally protected under whistleblower statutes. The measure threatens First Amendment rights and could prevent the public from learning about government actions and misconduct, undermining the informed debate necessary for democratic accountability. Critics argue existing laws already adequately address classified information and sensitive disclosures, making additional restrictions unnecessary and potentially harmful to public oversight.

What's next

No explicit next steps stated in the article

Read full article from source: The Washington Informer