Confidential Government Information Nondisclosure Agreement

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its D.C. affiliate oppose the proposed nondisclosure agreement, arguing that it constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. They contend that the agreement is overly broad, vague, and would chill whistleblowing while hindering the public's ability to hold the government accountable.

A coalition of organizations opposes the OPM's proposed standardized nondisclosure agreement, arguing it violates First Amendment rights, functions as an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech, and undermines federal whistleblower protections. They also contend that the NDA would exacerbate existing federal workforce recruitment and retention challenges.

The Environmental Protection Network (EPN), an organization of former federal regulators and scientists, opposes the OPM's proposed government-wide nondisclosure agreement. They argue that the NDA is overbroad, unnecessary, and lacks congressional authorization, potentially chilling whistleblowing and public accountability while failing to address the actual risks of information disclosure.

The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) opposes the proposed Confidential Government Nondisclosure Agreement, arguing that it imposes unconstitutional restrictions on speech, creates non-existent penalties, and conflicts with existing labor-management laws. They contend that the rule is unnecessary because current statutes already effectively protect sensitive information and that the new agreement would chill whistleblower protections and union representation rights.

Justice Connection, a nonprofit network of Department of Justice alumni, opposes the proposed Confidential Government Information Nondisclosure Agreement. They argue that the NDA imposes unconstitutional, overbroad restrictions on the First Amendment rights of current and former federal employees, particularly regarding the disclosure of government misconduct.

The American Pharmacists Association (APhA) supports the proposed Confidential Government Information Nondisclosure Agreement but requests specific protections for whistleblowers and the preservation of lawful reporting channels. They also suggest that the NDA's scope be narrowed for employees who do not have access to highly sensitive information and urge OPM to clarify that the form is discretionary for federal agencies.

The Whistleblower Network News and the National Whistleblower Center oppose the proposed NDA rulemaking, arguing that it violates the Whistleblower Protection Act, the First Amendment, and Supreme Court precedent. They contend that the rule creates an impermissible "chilling effect" on lawful disclosures of fraud, waste, and abuse by treating unclassified information as categorically restricted.

The Niskanen Center, a nonprofit public policy organization, opposes the proposed Confidential Government Information Nondisclosure Agreement because it introduces new, overbroad restrictions on speech and creates unnecessary administrative burdens. They argue that the goal of reminding employees of their obligations is better served through scenario-based annual training rather than a new, one-size-fits-all form.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 15 other news media organizations oppose the proposed nondisclosure agreement, arguing that its broad definition of "Confidential Government Information" would unconstitutionally chill the speech of federal employees and impede the press's ability to report on government operations. They urge the Office of Personnel Management to withdraw the proposal or significantly narrow its scope to only include information expressly prohibited by existing statutes or regulations.

The commenter opposes the proposed Confidential Government Information Nondisclosure Agreement, arguing that it contains conflicting definitions, vague language, and ambiguities that violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution. They specifically contend that the agreement's broad and undefined terms could impermissibly chill the freedom of expression for federal employees and the freedom of the press.