SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
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)
Non-Disclosure Agreements Demanded by Trump Are 'Unconstitutional and Unenforceable,' ACLU Says
"Once again, this president believes employees owe him a personal duty of loyalty, when their duty of loyalty is to the institution."
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."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
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.