this post was submitted on 26 May 2026
119 points (98.4% liked)

politics

29966 readers
1899 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The Trump administration wants all current and future federal employees to sign non-disclosure agreements, part of a continuing crackdown on leaks to the media.

The notice in the Federal Register from the Office of Personnel Management posted Tuesday asked for comment on a draft NDA to be used by federal agencies for “both new and existing employees.”

“The 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 notice said.

The notice sought comment on several questions, including whether the NDA should cover only unclassified information and what appropriate actions, if any, agencies should consider for new or current employees who choose not to sign the agreement.

The OPM noted “several recent instances” where internal agency communications related to rulemaking and policy development were disclosed without authorization. It also discussed specific instances in which federal employees at the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security disclosed information about planned immigration enforcement actions without authorization.

In one case, the New York Times and Washington Post received unauthorized information on the U.S. raid on Venezuela this past January and delayed “publishing what they knew to avoid endangering U.S. troops,” the OPM request for comment said.

all 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 54 points 1 week ago

How about you stop being the universe's most massive cunts? Hope that helps.

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 37 points 1 week ago

A criminal trying to prevent people from learning about his crimes?

[–] knobbysideup@sh.itjust.works 31 points 1 week ago

There's already a classification system. Here's a hint: resort bathrooms are not the proper place to store TS/SCI. Maybe start to get that and other opsec right like not using signal chats first?

[–] Eternal192@anarchist.nexus 24 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If you didn't have so much to hide there wouldn't be leaks dumb shit!

[–] SirMaple__@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 week ago
[–] BertramDitore@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is hilariously meaningless. Federal employees have all already agreed to this by signing their employment paperwork.

There is also required annual training, that every federal employee must retake every year that refreshes their “legal obligations to safeguard non-public, confidential, or proprietary information, created or obtained through their official duties.”

That description of the NDA could easily have been taken from stock language for any employment contract. This just feels like another excuse to weaken job protections for civil servants.

[–] oppy1984 4 points 1 week ago

Yep. 20 years ago I applied for a screener job with the TSA, just to take the test to see if you qualify you have to spend time going over the NDA and understand what you're signing.

I know for a fact that everything I saw is now outdated and useless, yet I still have about 55 years left before I can talk about it. And before anyone asks, no I didn't see anything special, just overly security conscious government B.S.

[–] BigMacHole@thelemmy.club 10 points 1 week ago

Good! The LAST thing We'd want from the MOST TRANSPARENT Tax Payer funded Administration in HISTORY is Transparency! I'm an Alpha Wolf!

[–] Reygle@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

It sure would be a lot simpler if they'd just stop being gigantic pieces of shit.

I think if such a thing happens we'll know. We'll know it's officially over, Democracy that is.

[–] HotsauceHurricane@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Trump admin: I KNOW WHAT'LL STOP THOSE TATTLE TALES, A PIECE OF PAPER!

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Gee I wonder where they got such a dumbfuck idea from.

[–] grimpy@lemmy.myserv.one 3 points 1 week ago

isn’t that what diapers are for?

[–] lemmyng@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

They really out here thinking that NDA's will stop ANONYMOUS leaks?! That wouldn't even work as a deterrent.

I thought that was what classification standards were for.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 week ago

Trump loves NDAs. They're wothless for what he wants, to hide criminality, but are an effective intimidation tool.