Two Virginia representatives introduced legislation late last month aimed at limiting how federal agencies can use nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) with government workers. The bill, the Federal Worker Protection Act (H.R. 10198), is a direct response to a rule proposed earlier this year by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

The bill, introduced by Reps. Eugene Vindman (D-VA) and Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA), and referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, would limit the use of nondisclosure agreements that restrict whistleblowing by federal employees and contractors.

“Federal workers should never have to choose between doing their jobs and speaking up when they see something wrong,” Vindman wrote in a press release on introduction. “This legislation makes clear that public servants who speak up will not face politically motivated retaliation. I will always take action to root out corruption and protect federal workers.”

“This bill guarantees federal employees clearly understand their rights and gives them real legal recourse if an NDA is unlawfully used to silence them,” added Rep. Subramanyam.

As we reported in June, OPM proposed a rule that would create a standardized, governmentwide NDA for both new and current federal employees. The comment period closed in late June with almost 30,000 comments – mostly in opposition.

OPM has said the rule is meant to standardize existing obligations rather than create new ones. The agency has pointed to a string of leaks to news outlets — including reporting on the administration's own proposals to overhaul federal layoff and performance-management rules — as justification, arguing that such disclosures disrupt agency operations and erode public trust. OPM Director Scott Kupor has said the requirement mirrors standard practice in the private sector, where employees handling sensitive information are often required to sign confidentiality agreements.

Beyond existing law — which already bars federal employees from disclosing classified information and carries criminal penalties for violations — the proposed NDA outlines additional consequences, including termination, for employees who share broadly defined internal or proprietary information, or who refuse to sign the agreement at all. OPM has indicated the new NDA form would be optional for agencies to use and not mandatory.

OPM has pushed back on comments that the proposed rule is unprecedented or restrictive. In a blog post addressing criticism, Kupor said the idea that agencies would ask employees to keep internal deliberations confidential should not be treated as surprising, and OPM has maintained that the proposed NDA "does not create new substantive restrictions on employee speech or disclosure rights" and expressly preserves employees' rights to make legally authorized disclosures, including protected whistleblower reports.

No committee action has been scheduled on H.R. 10198 to date. Click here track its progress.