Comment from Common Cause

June 26, 2026 The Honorable Scott Kupor, Director Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20415 RE: Coalition Opposition to Proposed Government-Wide Nondisclosure Agreement (Docket ID: OPM-2026-0100) Dear Director Kupor: The undersigned press freedom, whistleblowing advocacy, civil liberties, and public accountability organizations write to express our fierce objection to the Office of Personnel Management’s proposal to implement a government-wide nondisclosure agreement for federal employees. OPM’s claim that this effort merely streamlines existing requirements to protect sensitive information is misleading. The initiative is more accurately understood as an effort to silence public servants, isolate the federal workforce from the press and public oversight, and to stop embarrassing or politically damaging leaks. We strongly urge OPM to reject this rule in its entirety. Federal employees do not surrender their First Amendment rights upon entering public service. The Supreme Court has affirmed that government workers maintain the right to speak on matters of public importance, and agencies cannot force employees to sign away constitutional safeguards as a condition of federal employment. By barring employees from sharing broadly defined “non-public, confidential, or proprietary information” indefinitely, even after leaving government service, this proposal establishes an unconstitutional system of government censorship. The sweeping and vague nature of the term "confidential" information in the NDA is particularly alarming. OPM’s proposed text fails to define what is "confidential", potentially criminalizing or subjecting employees to severe civil liabilities and termination for sharing trivial, non-threatening agency details. Furthermore, the rule actively erodes the framework established by the Whistleblower Protection Act. OPM's superficial "carve-outs" for lawful whistleblowing offer cold comfort to employees navigating an environment already chilled by aggressive leak investigations. When employees face severe career or legal penalties over ambiguous definitions, they may choose silence over exposure. This chilling effect intentionally dismantles the primary truth-telling pipeline that Congress sought to protect, and hurts the public that benefits from disclosures. The proposal does not exist in a vacuum and is introduced as part of a broader war on transparency and government accountability. This NDA emerges alongside the systemic sidelining of nearly twenty inspectors general, the dismantling of the Office of Special Counsel's independence, the worsening performance of Freedom of Information Act offices that would otherwise be getting government information to the public, and weaponized directives threatening the widespread use of polygraphs to enforce employee loyalty. Unauthorized insider disclosures are an indispensable lifeline for American democracy. From exposing illegal mass surveillance to shedding light on secret immigration policies, the public relies on whistleblowers to understand what the government is actually doing. Forcing civil servants to choose between their livelihoods and their constitutional rights does not make the nation safer; it simply blinds the electorate. OPM must withdraw this rule immediately. Sincerely, The Freedom of the Press Foundation Common Cause Demand Progress Action Fund Clean Elections Texas NU Alumni