The Trump administration proposed a rule on May 26, 2026, that would allow federal agencies to require employees to sign non-disclosure agreements [1, 2].
This move represents a significant shift in how the U.S. government manages internal information. By implementing these agreements, the administration aims to restrict the flow of non-public data to the press and increase the legal risks for employees who disclose internal workings.
The proposed rule is designed to safeguard confidential or proprietary information [3, 4]. Administration officials said that the primary goal is to stop leaks to journalists [3, 4]. Under the new framework, agencies would have the authority to mandate that workers sign these documents as a condition of their employment, or as part of their ongoing duties [1, 2].
Critics of the proposal suggest that such measures could stifle transparency and discourage whistleblowers from reporting government misconduct. The administration, however, said that the rule is necessary to protect sensitive government operations from unauthorized disclosure [3, 4].
The scope of the rule would apply across various U.S. federal government agencies [2]. While the specific penalties for violating these NDAs have not been fully detailed in the initial proposal, the move signals a broader effort to tighten control over the federal workforce [1, 2].
This development follows a pattern of tension between the current administration and the media regarding the sourcing of internal government documents [3, 4]. The administration continues to say that the protection of non-public information is paramount to national security and operational efficiency [3, 4].
“The Trump administration proposed a rule... that would allow federal agencies to require employees to sign non-disclosure agreements.”
This proposal indicates a strategic effort by the Trump administration to centralize information control and reduce the influence of anonymous sourcing within the federal bureaucracy. If implemented, these NDAs could create a legal deterrent for civil servants, potentially shifting the balance between government secrecy and public accountability.





