�鶹��Ѱ�����

In a move that could reshape how information flows inside the federal government, the Trump administration has proposed a government-wide nondisclosure agreement for federal workers. The draft policy, released at the end of May by the Office of Personnel Management, would require employees to formally agree to safeguard a broad category of “confidential government information,” including internal deliberations and other non-public material.

Tony Tong

Federal employees are already bound by rules protecting classified and sensitive information. The proposed policy would extend those protections beyond national security, applying them to a broader range of internal government discussions and deliberations—information that has historically informed important reporting on government operations, even when no classified material was involved.

“The real dispute is not about classified secrets,” said��Tony Tong, professor of strategy and entrepreneurship in the��Leeds School of Business. “It centers on whether federal employees should be treated more like private-sector employees or as public servants whose obligations may sometimes include exposing government wrongdoing.”

Supporters say the change could curb leaks and allow for more candid decision-making, while critics argue it risks discouraging whistleblowing and limiting transparency.

The proposal is not yet final and is open for a 30-day public comment period, but it has already sparked debate over how to balance confidentiality and accountability. �鶹��Ѱ�����Boulder Today spoke with Tong about what the proposal could mean for government agencies, employees and the public.

Federal employees already have rules around classified and sensitive information. What is new about the proposed NDA policy?

Federal employees are already subject to various confidentiality obligations, so the debate is not about whether government workers should protect secrets. Rather, it centers on expanding the scope and enforcement of those obligations beyond traditional categories like classified information.

The proposed rule appears to apply to all federal employees, not just those handling classified information. It could shift from protecting clearly defined categories of legally protected information toward a broader set of internal government information and deliberations.��

There are pros and cons to the proposed policy, pending more clarity on the details. Supporters argue that government leaders need confidential space to deliberate. Opponents point to the difference between illegal disclosure and other types of disclosure that are not illegal, such as whistleblowing.

Legally, the government has much stronger authority to restrict speech involving classified information. It generally has weaker authority to limit speech about policy disagreements, management decisions or potential misconduct.

The real dispute is not about classified secrets. There is broad agreement that classified information should remain protected. The disagreement is over whether federal employees should be treated more like employees of a private corporation—where internal information generally belongs to the organization—or as public servants whose ultimate obligation may sometimes require exposing government wrongdoing.

Supporters say this is basic management—that organizations need confidentiality in order to function well. What is the strongest argument in favor of a broader NDA policy?

From a management perspective, the strongest argument for a broader NDA policy is that organizations need protected spaces for candid deliberation and coordinated action. Effective decision-making often requires employees to��, voice disagreements, and discuss sensitive issues without fear that internal conversations will quickly become public. If participants expect discussions to be leaked, they may become more guarded, reducing the quality of information available to decision-makers.

In addition, organizations tend to function best when disagreements are resolved through established internal processes rather than external channels. In the federal context, this argument is tied to democratic accountability: Elected leaders are responsible for policy decisions, and confidentiality can help ensure those decisions are debated internally and implemented consistently. From this perspective, broader NDAs are less about protecting secrets and more about enabling effective organizational governance.

Critics say the proposal is too broad and could chill employees from speaking up. What happens when workers are not sure what they can and cannot say?

It could have a chilling effect. The main concern is organizational silence. When employees are uncertain about what they can and cannot say, they often become overly cautious and withhold information.��

Research shows that organizations make better decisions when employees feel safe raising concerns, reporting problems and sharing dissenting views. The risk is that leaders receive less information about emerging issues, operational challenges or potential mistakes. As a result, the organization as a whole may become less adaptive and less effective. The key management challenge is to balance confidentiality with clear, trusted channels for employees to speak up when necessary.

How is an NDA in government different from an NDA in the private sector?

The key difference is that private firms are accountable primarily to their owners and shareholders, whereas government agencies are ultimately accountable to the public. In the private sector, NDAs are generally used to protect proprietary information and sources of competitive advantage. In government, confidentiality must be balanced against transparency, public oversight and the public's right to know how decisions are made. As a result, broader NDAs in government raise concerns that are less prominent in the corporate setting, particularly regarding accountability and whistleblowing.

Could a policy like this have unintended effects on workplace culture?

Yes. Any policy that is perceived as restricting communication can affect organizational culture. If employees view the policy as overly broad or punitive, it may reduce trust, discourage candid internal debate, and lower morale. It could also make recruitment and retention more challenging for employees who value professional autonomy and public service. Ultimately, much depends on implementation: Policies that clearly define boundaries and preserve trusted channels for raising concerns are less likely to generate these unintended effects.

You’ve previously discussed restrictive workplace agreements in the context of��noncompete agreements. Are there any broader lessons that apply here?

One broader lesson is that restrictive agreements, including noncompetes and NDAs, often involve a tradeoff between organizational control and information flows. In the case of noncompetes,��, along with that of other scholars, suggests stronger restrictions can protect firms' interests in the short run but may also reduce knowledge sharing, mobility and innovation in the longer run, ultimately hurting firms’ own interests.��

NDAs serve a different purpose, but a similar principle applies. While confidentiality can improve coordination and protect sensitive information, overly broad restrictions may discourage employees from sharing concerns or information that is valuable to the organization. From a management perspective, the challenge is not whether restrictions should exist, but how to design them effectively so they achieve their intended purpose without creating excessive organizational costs.

If the administration moves forward, what kind of safeguards would protect sensitive information without undermining accountability?

The most important safeguard is clarity. Employees need to know exactly what information is protected and what communication is allowed. Equally important are credible channels for reporting concerns, including strong whistleblower protections and access to inspectors general, Congress and other oversight bodies.��

More broadly, effective organizations distinguish between protecting sensitive information and suppressing dissent. The goal should be to prevent harmful disclosures while preserving the upward flow of information leaders need to identify problems, learn and remain accountable.

For the average reader who does not work in government, why should this debate matter?��

This debate matters because it reflects a fundamental challenge facing all organizations: how to balance confidentiality with transparency. Organizations need protected spaces for candid discussion and effective decision-making, but they also need mechanisms that allow problems, mistakes and misconduct to surface.��

The broader takeaway is that information governance is not simply about controlling information. It is about designing governance mechanisms and systems that protect sensitive information while ensuring that leaders receive accurate feedback and remain accountable. The federal NDA debate is ultimately a debate about where that balance should be struck.