A new proposal regarding government-wide nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) could affect both current and future federal employees across agencies, impacting their rights as well as their whistleblower protections and collective bargaining rights. Here’s what to know.

‘Standardized’ NDA

The proposal from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), published in the Federal Register on May 27, 2026, would create a standardized NDA intended to document employees’ acknowledgment of existing obligations to protect non-public government information while preserving disclosures authorized by law, including protected whistleblower disclosures.

According to OPM, the proposed NDA is designed to improve consistency across the federal government, reinforce confidentiality obligations, and address concerns regarding unauthorized disclosures of sensitive government information.

The proposal in the Federal Register states that “[t]he form is intended to document Federal employees’ acknowledgment of, and agreement to comply with, current legal obligations to safeguard non-public, confidential, or proprietary information, created or obtained through their official duties, while expressly preserving the right to make disclosures authorized by law.”

The proposed form would apply to newly hired federal employees but could also be administered to existing employees if agencies choose to adopt it. OPM said the NDA would not create new substantive restrictions on employee speech or disclosure rights, but would instead formalize acknowledgment of obligations that already exist under federal law and ethics regulations.

While the proposal is part of OPM’s efforts to revise federal employment standards involving employee conduct and compliance with confidentiality requirements, the signed NDA could also become part of an employee’s permanent file.

Impact on Federal Employee Rights

As the proposed NDA relates to government workers, federal employment attorneys say the proposal could have significant implications for federal workplace compliance, personnel actions, onboarding practices, internal investigations, and suitability determinations moving forward. The proposed NDA is broader than a typical federal employee agreement, and could lead to an employee’s removal for violating an NDA, which could also lead to future litigation.

Impact on Whistleblower Protections

While the proposed NDA may discourage federal employees from speaking out, there are currently legal limitations in place regarding use of NDAs for federal employees that bar NDAs from limiting whistleblowers rights, according to the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 (WPEA).

The WPEA strengthens the protections for federal employees who disclose evidence of “waste, fraud, or abuse.”  Reporting evidence of waste, fraud, or abuse involving classified information or classified programs is allowed, but must be made consistent with established rules and procedures designed to protect classified information.

Further, 5 U.S.C. § 7211, known as the Lloyd-LaFollette Act, guarantees federal employees an unqualified right to petition Congress, members of Congress, and congressional committees, and to furnish information to either House of Congress.

This statute does not extend to media contacts. The right to contact the media as a whistleblower is governed instead by the broader Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8), which protects “any disclosure” of qualifying information regardless of the recipient—including the press (per the caselaw involving former Park Police Chief Teresa Chambers)—subject to very important limitations.

Therefore, the Lloyd-LaFollette Act and WPA both operate in complementary but distinct spheres, and federal nondisclosure agreements are legally required to acknowledge both.

Further, federal employees may communicate with, provide information to, file a complaint with, cooperate with, or otherwise participate in an investigation or proceeding by:

• the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC);
• any Inspector General (IG) with jurisdiction;
• any federal, state, or local law enforcement or regulatory authority;
• Congress or a Member of Congress; and
• if applicable to employees, your agency’s leadership, management, or supervisors through appropriate official channels consistent with agency policy.

If the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is relevant, nothing prohibits or restricts lawful communications with OSHA regarding workplace safety or health, retaliation, or other matters within OSHA’s jurisdiction.

Impact of NDAs on Collective Bargaining Rights

NDAs can significantly undermine collective bargaining rights by limiting the ability of unions and employees to communicate, negotiate, and enforce agreements effectively.

NDAs often restrict employees from discussing wages, working conditions, or contract terms with co-workers or union representatives. This can make it harder for unions to gather accurate information, assess workplace conditions, and present a unified position during negotiations. In collective bargaining, transparency is essential for both parties to reach a fair agreement.

When NDAs are tied to forced arbitration clauses, employees may be unable to report grievances or workplace misconduct without risking legal consequences. This silencing effect can weaken the union’s ability to protect workers’ rights and hold employers accountable. In the context of the National Labor Relations Act, which requires good-faith bargaining, such restrictions can impede the union’s role as a collective voice.

By controlling the flow of information, NDAs can give employers an advantage in negotiations. Employers may use them to prevent unions from disclosing internal policies, performance metrics, or other data that could strengthen the union’s bargaining position. This asymmetry can erode the balance of power in collective bargaining.

NDAs also can foster a culture of fear and silence, where employees hesitate to raise concerns, which undermines trust between workers and management, and between workers and their unions, which is critical for effective collective bargaining.

Navigating the Future Use of NDAs

While the government proposal reflects the federal government’s growing focus on internal accountability, confidentiality, and control over sensitive information, federal agencies will need to carefully navigate how these agreements interact with whistleblower protections, collective bargaining rights and existing federal employment laws. And it is equally important that federal employees understand their First Amendment rights.

The public comment period for this proposal runs for 30 days from initial publication in the Federal Register.

If you have questions about your rights as a federal employee, Tully Rinckey’s team of dedicated federal employment attorneys is available to assist. Please call 8885294543 to schedule a consultation, or schedule a consultation online.