The government's proposed NDA cites criminal penalties for violations. The only statute it references covers destruction or theft of government material. Not leaks. Not unauthorized disclosures. Theft.
A national security attorney called that "ridiculous on its face" and said it had "no obvious relevance" to what the NDA actually purports to restrict. The administration either doesn't know the law it is citing or it is betting that federal workers won't look it up.
The post-employment provision - binding workers to silence even after they leave government service - is, in the words of the same attorney, "unequivocally unlawful." The First Amendment limits what the government can make former employees sign away. This is settled law. Courts have ruled on it repeatedly, including against Trump's own campaign NDAs, which a federal judge in 2021 found so broad they were legally void.
Trump's White House lawyers explained during his first term that the NDAs he wanted aides to sign were unenforceable. He signed them anyway. When Mary Trump's NDA failed in court, she described his strategy plainly: use money, lawyers, and position to run out the clock and outspend people who can't afford to fight.
Now he is applying that same logic to two million federal employees. The NDA will probably not survive court challenge. That is not the point. The point is the FEMA whistleblower calculating whether to call their congressman. The EPA scientist deciding whether to talk to a reporter. The DOJ attorney who saw something wrong wondering if the risk is worth it.
The chill does not require a conviction. It just requires the threat to feel real enough to work.
A proposal to push federal workers to sign nondisclosure agreements is part of a bigger effort to hide government secrets—and “the message from Trump to federal workers is clear: Shut up, or else,” Quinta Jurecic argues:
theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/0…