The American Federation of Government Employees attacks a proposed rule from the Office of Personnel Management that would require federal employees to sign non-disclosure agreements as a condition of employment.

AFGE National President Everett Kelley framed the requirement as part of a broader effort to silence career civil servants. He characterized the NDA rule as an attempt to remove nonpartisan employees and replace them with political loyalists willing to accept restrictions on speech.

The proposed rule will appear in the Federal Register tomorrow. It applies to current and prospective employees at participating agencies. The requirement represents a shift in federal employment practices, moving toward stricter confidentiality obligations for the civil service workforce.

The AFGE position reflects longstanding tensions between administrations and federal employee unions over workforce management and employee speech rights. The federation represents roughly 350,000 federal and D.C. government employees across agencies including the Defense Department, Veterans Affairs, and Social Security Administration.

Federal employee unions have consistently opposed policies they view as threats to merit-based hiring and civil service protections. Kelley's statement suggests the AFGE sees this NDA requirement through that lens, treating it not as a routine confidentiality measure but as a tool for political purges.

The timing matters. The proposal lands amid broader debates over federal workforce composition and loyalty. Conservative administrations have pushed to reduce what they call the "deep state" by increasing political appointees and reducing civil service job protections. Employee unions push back, arguing such moves undermine institutional knowledge and nonpartisan governance.

The NDA rule's scope remains unclear from available information. Key questions linger about which agencies participate, what information triggers the agreement, and what enforcement mechanisms attach to violations. The Federal Register publication tomorrow will provide those details and open a public comment period.

AFGE's immediate and forceful opposition suggests the union will mobilize members and potentially file formal comments opposing the rule. Whether