ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION – NO HARD COPY TO FOLLOW
Submitted via: https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/OPM-2026-0100-0004
June 26, 2026
RE: Comments on Proposed Confidential Government Information Non-Disclosure Agreement (OPM-2026-0100)
The Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Office of Personnel Management’s proposed Confidential Government Information Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA).
The Coalition is a nonpartisan organization comprised of over 5,000 current, former, and retired employees and volunteers of the National Park Service, who collectively represent more than 50,000 years of experience caring for America’s most treasured natural and cultural resources. Our members have served in every region of the National Park System and at every level of leadership, including former Directors, Deputy Directors, Regional Directors, Superintendents, scientists, resource managers, interpreters, law enforcement officers, and other career public servants.
Our members understand the importance of protecting information that is legitimately confidential. Throughout their careers, Coalition members have handled sensitive personnel information, law enforcement information, procurement information, privileged legal communications, cultural resource data, and other information protected by law. Existing statutes, regulations, policies, and professional obligations already provide extensive safeguards against the unauthorized disclosure of such information.
For that reason, the Coalition is concerned that the proposed government-wide NDA is unnecessary, overly broad, and likely to have unintended consequences for the federal workforce and the public interest.
OPM has not demonstrated that existing authorities are insufficient. Federal employees are already subject to numerous legal and ethical obligations governing the protection of non-public information. Agencies possess substantial authority to investigate and address unauthorized disclosures. The proposal does not identify a specific gap in existing law or policy that necessitates a government-wide NDA applicable to employees across all agencies and occupations.
The proposal’s definition of covered information is vague and expansive. Terms such as “sensitive,” “pre-decisional,” and “deliberative” could encompass a vast range of ordinary government activities and communications. As written, the proposal provides insufficient clarity regarding what information employees may discuss and what information may subject them to discipline or other penalties. Such ambiguity creates uncertainty that may discourage lawful communications and the exchange of information necessary for effective government oversight and accountability.
In addition, this proposal may conflict with longstanding federal commitments to transparency, scientific integrity, and public accountability. Many federal agencies, including agencies that manage scientific, natural, and cultural resources, rely on open exchange of information, peer review, public engagement, and collaboration with academic institutions and stakeholders. Policies that create uncertainty regarding lawful communications risk undermining those important objectives.
This proposal also could create a chilling effect on employees who seek to raise concerns regarding waste, fraud, abuse, scientific integrity, resource management, public safety, or violations of law. OPM states that the proposed NDA is not intended to restrict protected disclosures. Nevertheless, broad confidentiality language combined with potential disciplinary consequences may discourage employees from exercising rights protected under whistleblower laws, communicating with Congress, cooperating with Inspectors General, or participating in other lawful oversight activities.
We are also particularly concerned about the NDA’s application to former employees. The federal government and the public benefit from the expertise and institutional knowledge of former public servants. Former employees frequently contribute to public understanding through scholarship, testimony, professional presentations, consulting, and participation in public policy discussions. The proposal’s five-year post-employment restrictions could discourage such participation and deprive policymakers and the public of valuable expertise without a demonstrated corresponding benefit.
Finally, the language presented states that, “OPM expects that the proposed NDA will be an Optional Form, meaning that Federal agencies would have discretion whether to use the NDA.” And yet, if agencies elect to use the NDA, “it would be administered to newly hired employees as part of the onboarding process, and to current Federal employees.” This language would provide agencies an option to use or not use it. But, if they choose to use it, it would be required of new hires and current Federal employees to sign it. This is concerning.
The Coalition strongly supports protecting information that is classified, legally protected, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under existing law. However, we believe the proposed NDA extends well beyond those categories and could have significant negative consequences for employee morale, recruitment, retention, transparency, and public trust.
Accordingly, we urge OPM to withdraw the proposal.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Sincerely,
Executive Director
Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks
Ed****@********ps.org
2 Massachusetts Ave NE, Unit 77436, Washington, DC 20013
www.protectnps.org
Phone: (202) 819-8622