Already a subscriber? Make sure to log into your account before viewing this content. You can access your account by hitting the “login” button on the top right corner. Still unable to see the content after signing in? Make sure your card on file is up-to-date.

The Trump administration has proposed requiring federal employees to sign non-disclosure agreements that would bar them from speaking to journalists without prior authorization.

Getting into it: The draft rule, announced Tuesday by the Office of Personnel Management and set to be published in the Federal Register, would apply to “both new and existing” federal workers and warns that the government could pursue legal action (including civil and criminal penalties) against those who violate it. The proposal also claims the government could collect “royalties” from anyone who discloses information, though the OPM did not explain what that means.

Critically, it takes an expansive view of what counts as confidential, extending well beyond classified intelligence to cover “internal agency operations, personnel matters, procurement processes, or any sensitive, pre-decisional or deliberative material” that isn’t already public. It would bind even former employees, who would need written sign-off before they could go to the media. There will be a 30-day public comment period, and agencies would have discretion over whether to adopt it.

The OPM insists the agreement carves out legally protected whistleblower disclosures to Congress and inspectors general, and claims it creates no “new substantive restrictions” but simply documents existing legal obligations. OPM Director Scott Kupor argued the change brings the government in line with the private sector. “Employees handling sensitive business or customer information are routinely required to sign confidentiality agreements, and the federal government should not be held to a lower standard.”

To justify the rule, the OPM cited several specific leaks, including information it said The New York Times and The Washington Post received about the US raid on Venezuela in January, which it claimed put troops at risk. The Times disputed that characterization, with executive editor Joe Kahn stating the paper “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.” The OPM also pointed to a leak of the personal information of roughly 4,500 ICE personnel that it said jeopardized their safety.

Federal employee unions came out swinging. Everett Kelley, head of the American Federation of Government Employees, predicted the OPM would “pressure agencies to make the NDA mandatory and then fire employees who refuse to sign it,” calling it “another attempt by the administration to purge the civil service of nonpartisan career employees and replace them with loyalists.”

The Freedom of the Press Foundation likewise blasted the plan as “dangerously secretive” and a move that would “kneecap whistleblower protections.”