The Trump White House just told over 2 million federal employees to put it in writing or pack it up. The Office of Personnel Management published a proposed rule in the Federal Register this week requiring federal workers to sign non-disclosure agreements — an "Optional Form" NDA designed to plug the hemorrhaging of classified and sensitive information that's been pouring out of Washington like a busted fire hydrant since 2022.
Oh no, government employees might actually face consequences for leaking national security secrets to their favorite reporters at the New York Times. The horror.
The OPM cited "widespread unauthorized disclosures of information" as the driving force behind the proposal, and honestly, the receipts are long enough to wallpaper the West Wing. We all remember the Supreme Court abortion decision leak in 2022 — the one that turned the Court into a circus. Then came the FBI and Department of Homeland Security immigration enforcement plans getting splashed across front pages in 2025, giving illegal aliens a heads-up before ICE could do its job. And the crown jewel: early 2026, when details of a U.S. military operation in Venezuela were leaked before our troops were even in position.
Let that sink in. Someone inside the federal government leaked military raid details — putting American lives at risk — because they didn't like the policy.
The proposal includes a 30-day public comment period running through June 26, which means the professional complaint class has exactly one month to screech about tyranny before this thing goes final. And screech they have.
Everett Kelley, head of the American Federation of Government Employees, called the NDA requirement an "attempt by the administration to purge the civil service of nonpartisan career employees." Nonpartisan. That's rich. These are the same "nonpartisan career employees" who spent four years sabotaging President Trump's first term from the inside, slow-walking orders, and feeding opposition research to CNN between coffee breaks.
Doreen Greenwald of the National Treasury Employees Union warned the NDAs would "chill First Amendment-protected speech." Right. Because leaking classified military operations to the Washington Post is definitely what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights. James Madison would be so proud.
And then there's Joe Kahn, the New York Times Executive Editor, who offered this gem: "Contrary to some claims, however, The Times did not have verified details about the pending operation." Translation: we had the details, we just couldn't verify them fast enough before someone else printed them. Comforting.
Here's what the unions and the media don't want you to know: NDA requirements for federal workers aren't new. The Supreme Court itself issued an NDA policy in 2024 after the abortion leak debacle. The Department of Veterans Affairs and even the old War Department used similar agreements. The OPM updated its guidance in June 2025 to tighten the screws, and this proposed rule is the logical next step.
The only people panicking about signing a piece of paper promising not to leak state secrets are people who plan to leak state secrets. That's it. That's the whole story.
Two million federal employees, and the loudest objections are coming from union bosses and newspaper editors — the exact pipeline that's been weaponizing leaks against this administration from day one. The NDA doesn't stop whistleblowing through proper channels. It doesn't prevent anyone from talking to an inspector general. It stops the back-channel drip of classified information to reporters who treat every leak like a Pulitzer audition.
President Trump promised to drain the swamp. Turns out the swamp has a leak problem, and the plumber just showed up with a contract and a pen. Sign it or find a new job. Welcome to accountability, according to LifeZette — a concept that's apparently terrifying when you've spent decades operating without any.
