President Donald Trump reportedly asked that all of his senior White House employees sign non-disclosure agreements after growing angry over anonymous leaks early in his term. (Photo: Joe/Flickr/cc)
Mar 19, 2018
Amid reports that President Donald Trump demanded that his senior staffers sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs)--and threatened them with huge financial penalties if they breached the contracts--civil liberties advocates and legal experts said the documents show blatant disregard for public employees' constitutional rights.
"Public employees can't be gagged by private agreements. These so-called NDAs are unconstitutional and unenforceable," declared Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, in a statement.
According to the Washington Post, which first reported on the agreements, White House staffers saw the documents as legally non-binding as well, but signed them to appease Trump.
"Some balked at first but, pressed by then-Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and the White House Counsel's Office, ultimately complied, concluding that the agreements would likely not be enforceable in any event," wrote Ruth Marcus on Sunday.
The NDAs were distributed in the early months of the Trump administration, after the president grew furious over information leaking from the White House via anonymous sources.
Draft documents noted that violators would be subject to penalties of $10 million if they spoke about any "nonpublic information" they gained access to during their time working in the White House--even if they waited until the end of Trump's presidency to share the information, and even if they wrote a fictional account containing "any mention of the operations of the White House, federal agencies, foreign governments, or other entities interacting with the United States Government that is based on confidential information."
"This is crazy," attorney Debra Katz, who has represented government whistleblowers, told the Post. "The idea of having some kind of economic penalty is an outrageous effort to limit and chill speech. Once again, this president believes employees owe him a personal duty of loyalty, when their duty of loyalty is to the institution."
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Amid reports that President Donald Trump demanded that his senior staffers sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs)--and threatened them with huge financial penalties if they breached the contracts--civil liberties advocates and legal experts said the documents show blatant disregard for public employees' constitutional rights.
"Public employees can't be gagged by private agreements. These so-called NDAs are unconstitutional and unenforceable," declared Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, in a statement.
According to the Washington Post, which first reported on the agreements, White House staffers saw the documents as legally non-binding as well, but signed them to appease Trump.
"Some balked at first but, pressed by then-Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and the White House Counsel's Office, ultimately complied, concluding that the agreements would likely not be enforceable in any event," wrote Ruth Marcus on Sunday.
The NDAs were distributed in the early months of the Trump administration, after the president grew furious over information leaking from the White House via anonymous sources.
Draft documents noted that violators would be subject to penalties of $10 million if they spoke about any "nonpublic information" they gained access to during their time working in the White House--even if they waited until the end of Trump's presidency to share the information, and even if they wrote a fictional account containing "any mention of the operations of the White House, federal agencies, foreign governments, or other entities interacting with the United States Government that is based on confidential information."
"This is crazy," attorney Debra Katz, who has represented government whistleblowers, told the Post. "The idea of having some kind of economic penalty is an outrageous effort to limit and chill speech. Once again, this president believes employees owe him a personal duty of loyalty, when their duty of loyalty is to the institution."
Amid reports that President Donald Trump demanded that his senior staffers sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs)--and threatened them with huge financial penalties if they breached the contracts--civil liberties advocates and legal experts said the documents show blatant disregard for public employees' constitutional rights.
"Public employees can't be gagged by private agreements. These so-called NDAs are unconstitutional and unenforceable," declared Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, in a statement.
According to the Washington Post, which first reported on the agreements, White House staffers saw the documents as legally non-binding as well, but signed them to appease Trump.
"Some balked at first but, pressed by then-Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and the White House Counsel's Office, ultimately complied, concluding that the agreements would likely not be enforceable in any event," wrote Ruth Marcus on Sunday.
The NDAs were distributed in the early months of the Trump administration, after the president grew furious over information leaking from the White House via anonymous sources.
Draft documents noted that violators would be subject to penalties of $10 million if they spoke about any "nonpublic information" they gained access to during their time working in the White House--even if they waited until the end of Trump's presidency to share the information, and even if they wrote a fictional account containing "any mention of the operations of the White House, federal agencies, foreign governments, or other entities interacting with the United States Government that is based on confidential information."
"This is crazy," attorney Debra Katz, who has represented government whistleblowers, told the Post. "The idea of having some kind of economic penalty is an outrageous effort to limit and chill speech. Once again, this president believes employees owe him a personal duty of loyalty, when their duty of loyalty is to the institution."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.