Fishers has a number of current federal employees and retirees from the civil service (such as myself). An issue has arisen impacting federal workers that I believe deserves some attention.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is proposing a new government-wide nondisclosure agreement for federal employees, a plan the agency says is aimed at protecting confidential government information and reducing unauthorized leaks.

OPM says the proposed NDA would apply to employees and contractors whose duties involve routine access to sensitive systems or protected information. If finalized, the form could become a standard part of the federal onboarding process and could also apply to current employees at participating agencies.

The argument in favor of the proposal is straightforward. Federal employees often handle private, sensitive or security-related information. That can include personnel records, procurement information, law enforcement material, operational plans and other internal documents not intended for public release. Supporters can argue that a standard NDA would make expectations clear, create uniform rules across agencies and remind employees that unauthorized disclosure of government information can damage public trust, compromise investigations or put people at risk.

OPM also argues the NDA would not eliminate legal protections for whistleblowers. The agency says the proposed form is intended to protect confidential information while still allowing disclosures that are authorized by law.

But the arguments against the proposal are stronger.

First, calling the agreement voluntary becomes questionable if refusing to sign could place an employee’s job in jeopardy. News accounts describe the proposal as applying to current and future federal employees, with violations potentially leading to discipline, termination or even civil and criminal penalties.

Second, the definition of confidential government information appears broad. Reports say it could include internal agency operations, personnel matters, procurement processes and sensitive pre-decisional or deliberative material. That could go well beyond classified information or truly sensitive records.

Third, federal employees already operate under laws and rules restricting the improper disclosure of classified information, personal data, procurement-sensitive material and other protected records. A sweeping NDA may add more intimidation than protection.

The American Federation of Government Employees has sharply criticized the proposal, calling it an attack on nonpartisan federal employees and warning it could be used to silence dissent or discourage workers from raising concerns.

That is the heart of the problem. Even if whistleblower rights technically remain in place, a broad NDA could chill employees from speaking to inspectors general, Congress, journalists or the public about waste, fraud, abuse or misconduct.

Federal employees should not be free to leak private or protected information. But the public also has a right to know when government is failing, abusing power or hiding facts that matter.

After weighing the arguments on both sides, this proposal looks less like a necessary protection and more like a tool that could discourage accountability. Bottom line: it is a bad idea, in my view.