Perhaps with this Administration, the cover-up is not worse than the many actual crimes and ethical breaches perpetrated against the American people and our democracy. In fact, the pardons of business associates, leveraging U.S. government influence to enrich the Trump family, and creating a $1.8 billion slush fund to pay insurrectionists, among other Trump loyalists, were committed in plain view of the world and the United States Congress. The latest proposal to require 2 million federal employees to sign Non-disclosure Agreements (NDAs) is a clear sign that there are infractions that even this grotesquely brash administration doesn’t want us to know.
The axiom, “…It’s the cover up,” from the Watergate era, is often attributed to the late Tennessee Senator Howard Baker describing how the efforts to disguise the break-in at Watergate exceeded the seriousness of the breach of the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters. The extent of the cover-up and the direct involvement of President Nixon was revealed by the source of Washington Post reporters Woodward and Bernstein, known as “Deep Throat.” Many years later, it was revealed that “Deep Throat was former FBI associate director Mark Felt.
Throughout modern American history, it has often been conscientious federal employees who have revealed corruption and scandal within the government. Some have secretly leaked information to media outlets, while others have followed the more formal whistleblower protocols that are intended to provide protection. It was an anonymous CIA intelligence official who filed a formal whistleblower complaint claiming that President Trump, in his first term, was using his power to solicit interference in the presidential election by Ukraine. That claim was later corroborated by Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman and diplomat William Taylor and led to Trump’s impeachment.
Frustrated by the release of data and planning information, aka “leaks,” the Trump Administration has proposed through the Office of Personnel Management an NDA that all federal employees would sign. The proposal is currently in the 30-day public comment phase.
In the draft notice, the Administration defines confidential information that employees would not be allowed to disclose as “internal agency operations, personnel matters, procurement processes, or any sensitive, pre-decisional or deliberative material that is not currently publicly available and should not be disclosed under applicable law”—much more expansive than top secret or classified information. According to the notice, employees would still retain whistleblower protections, and the NDAs are necessary because exposing this information erodes public trust and disrupts agency activities.
Federal employee unions aren’t buying it. They point to existing federal laws that are prosecutable and protect the nation’s secrets. Union leaders believe that the NDA proposal is an effort to eliminate civil servants and replace them with partisan loyalists. Others see it as an effort to intimidate employees from speaking out when they witness wrongdoing.
Already, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth requires Pentagon officials to sign an NDA to be provided with information regarding defense planning and certain initiatives. This follows Hegseth’s controversial move to require legacy journalists to sign a 21-page agreement that required, among other things, that reporters could not report on topics not previously approved by the Pentagon. The New York Times sued, and the court ordered Hegseth to reinstate press credentials. Hegseth then announced that the press would be relocated to an annex outside the Pentagon and must have an official escort to enter the building.
Americans who don’t trust the legacy media are likely not too concerned about the impediments placed on reporters at the Pentagon and throughout the federal government since Trump was sworn in. A significant majority would likely also agree that there must be safeguards in place to prevent information from being leaked that could endanger American citizens, officials, or servicemembers. That is a reasonable, good-faith position in favor of NDAs for federal employees.
The problem is that this is not a good-faith administration. This is an administration that abhors accountability and the idea of checks and balances. It is also an administration intent on retribution against anyone who crosses it, regardless of any good intentions. Based on the flagrancy with which Trump and his team ignore laws, rules, and regulations and have leveraged the Department of Justice and other federal agencies to protect friends and punish enemies, one can only conclude that the proposed NDA is not about shielding the nation and its people from potential harm, but about covering up the President’s transgressions.