Following recent “unauthorized disclosures,” the Office of Personnel Management on Tuesday announced its intention of drafting a governmentwide NDA that agencies can implement at their discretion for workers who have access to sensitive information, such as personnel records and operational plans.

“OPM believes that a standard NDA form will promote consistency across government, better protect confidential information and better inform federal employees of their rights and obligations regarding confidential information,” the proposal reads.

OPM’s proposal was published Wednesday in the Federal Register and opened a 30-day public comment period through June 26.

The OPM said the move follows several recent leaks of internal government information.

“There have been several recent instances in which internal agency communications related to rulemaking and policy development were disclosed without authorization,” the proposal says.

“Such disclosures risk chilling candid interagency feedback, disrupting orderly decision-making and weakening trust within and among federal agencies,” the proposal continues.

The draft lists several examples, with one dating back to 2022 when a Supreme Court opinion overturning abortion rights was leaked to a reporter, prompting the Court to implement its own NDA in 2024.

The proposal cited a 2025 incident in which several Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Homeland Security workers released immigration enforcement plans when unauthorized to do so.

More recently, in early January 2026, the proposal also claims that the New York Times and Washington Post received unauthorized disclosures from federal employees about the planned U.S. raid on Venezuela before it began, which prompted the organizations to postpone “publishing what they knew to avoid endangering US troops.”

The New York Times disputes that assertion.

“Contrary to some claims, however, The Times did not have verified details about the pending operation to capture Maduro or a story prepared, nor did we withhold publication at the request of the Trump administration,” the New York Times Executive Editor Joe Kahn wrote in January 2026 in response to questions from readers.

OPM’s announcement comes less than two months after President Donald Trump vowed to find the “leaker” behind the release of information involving a missing U.S. airman from a downed fighter jet in Iran. In an early April press conference, Trump did not specify which media company received the leak but did threaten to put the reporter in jail if they, or their organization, did not disclose their source.

OPM previously published a separate rule in June 2025 addressing federal employee “suitability and fitness” requirements with nondisclosure requirements.

The draft says that the NDA will be an “Optional Form,” allowing federal agencies to decide for themselves whether or not to use the agreement. If an agency decides to use the NDA, it would be given to new hires as well as current employees.

Even though the draft says that the proposal is not meant to implement “new substantive restrictions on employee speech or disclosure rights,” union leaders have criticized the move, calling it unnecessary and warning it could silence workers.

“This proposed NDA is another attempt by the administration to purge the civil service of nonpartisan career employees and replace them with loyalists who won’t speak out against waste, fraud and abuse,” Everett Kelley, the national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal employee union, said in a statement.

Doreen Greenwald, the president of the second largest federal employee union, National Treasury Employees Union, said there was “no basis” for this action and that the union would oppose the proposal.

“Existing law protects our nation’s secrets. Non-disclosure agreements would preemptively chill First Amendment-protected speech and dissuade protected whistleblowing activity,” Greenwald said in a release.

There are currently over two million federal employees, according to OPM, with the largest share of workers serving in the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

About 20% of VA’s 479,000 employees — nearly 96,000 individuals — currently have full-time or part-time telework arrangements, according to the department. It was not clear from VA’s announcement how many of them will see changes in their status in the next few weeks.

Officials insisted the move back to the office is about fairness and efficiency.

“This is a commonsense step toward treating all VA employees equally,” acting VA Secretary Todd Hunter said in a statement. “Most VA clinical staff don’t have the luxury of working remotely, and we believe the performance, collaboration and productivity of the department will improve if all VA employees are held to the same standard.”

As one of his first official acts after inauguration, President Donald Trump issued a memo stating that agency heads must “take all necessary steps to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis.”

In a message to VA staff on Monday, department leadership said that all political appointees, senior executive service members and their equivalents, and scientific or professional employees will no longer be eligible for remote work arrangements in the future.

By Feb. 24, any telework agreements for that group will be terminated, except for “ad hoc or situational telework.”

Officials also said that by April 28, any remote work and telework arrangements for non-bargaining unit employees who live within 50 miles of an agency facility will be terminated.

Remote work agreements for supervisors and non-bargaining unit employees who live more than 50 miles from their official duty stations are still being reviewed. Officials promised further guidance in coming weeks.

Union members are not covered by the new announcement. Officials said that return to in-person work for any bargaining unit employees will be announced at a later date.

And the new policy does allow for exceptions “as a reasonable accommodation due to a disability or a qualifying medical condition.” Exceptions also include military spouses with permanent change of station orders.

Still, critics have already attacked Trump’s limits on remote work as unproductive and potentially harmful to agency end strength.

“Providing eligible employees with the opportunity to work hybrid schedules is a key tool for recruiting and retaining workers in both the public and private sectors,” American Federation of Government Employees National President Everett Kelley said in a statement last month.

“Restricting the use of hybrid work arrangements will make it harder for federal agencies to compete for top talent.”

In his confirmation hearing last month, Veterans Affairs Secretary nominee Doug Collins told lawmakers that he would “encourage employees to come back to work” if confirmed into the top job, but he also said he would ensure the department was following the White House’s remote work limits.

“We’re going to make sure that we get people in there, because at the end of the day, it’s about veterans,” he said.

Collins is expected to be confirmed to the top VA leadership post later this week.

But whether the executive order even applies to those posts remains unclear. Trump’s pick to lead VA told lawmakers Tuesday that he is still examining the new rule, but he’s optimistic it will not adversely impact veterans’ care.

“I think what we’re going to see is that no one on the veteran side is going to miss their health care provider because of this new hiring freeze,” VA secretary nominee Doug Collins told members of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee during his confirmation hearing. “The president is making a prudent step as he comes into office to make sure that we have a good handle on what we got.”

Just hours after his inauguration, Trump ordered “a freeze on the hiring of federal civilian employees, to be applied throughout the executive branch.” The action covered both existing vacant posts and any potential new federal jobs.

The order did include an exception for military personnel, as well as positions related to immigration enforcement and public safety. It also stated that “nothing in this memorandum shall adversely impact the provision of Social Security, Medicare or veterans’ benefits.”

Collins acknowledged in the confirmation hearing that exactly what that exception covers is not clear. Benefits processors appear unaffected by the freeze, but what – if any – medical posts are covered is undefined for now. He said sorting out the uncertainty will be among his first priorities if he is approved for the VA leadership post.

VA ended fiscal 2024 with about 454,000 staffers, about 417,000 of whom work in department medical centers and clinics. About 10% of the workforce leaves each year due to retirement, firings or other career opportunities.

That level of attrition means Veterans Health Administration officials need to hire upwards of 40,000 new workers annually to maintain operations at VA medical sites, a significant challenge given the hundreds of locations spread throughout the United States.

Before Trump returned to the White House, officials from former President Joe Biden’s administration had warned that VA would likely need a budget boost of several billion dollars in coming months to keep up hiring rates to maintain current service levels.

Mark Takano, D-Calif., the ranking member of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said Tuesday Trump’s hiring halt could make that challenge even worse.

“If VA freezes hiring as mandated in Trump’s executive order, veterans could face significant wait times for medical appointments and reductions in access to care and benefits,” Takano said in a statement. “The drafters of these orders clearly did not consider the downstream effects of a hiring freeze on the millions of veterans who rely on VA.”

Several Democrats on the Senate panel expressed similar concerns.

“There are also openings where the facility directors are saying, ‘We need more nurses, we need more doctors, we need more mental health care specialists,’” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., ranking member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee. “You can’t provide veterans health care without the skilled professionals to do it.”

Federal union representatives also attacked the move.

“Make no mistake – this action is not about making the federal government run more efficiently but rather is about sowing chaos and targeting a group of patriotic Americans that President Trump openly calls crooked and dishonest,” American Federation of Government Employees President Everett Kelley said in a statement.

As part of the order, Trump directed officials in his new administration to submit plans “to reduce the size of the federal government’s workforce through efficiency improvements and attrition” in the next 90 days. The memo states that the freeze will stay in place until at least then.

A Fed Times reader asks:

“I am a federal employee and I am hoping you will be able to provide some insight for my perplexing situation.

I was hired in February 2023 as a GS-5 Step 1.

In May 2023, I moved to another division within that department and became a GS-6. I currently work in this position.

I have received an offer for a position with another department. The hiring salary offer is for the same amount as my current salary.

With that being said, my question is: am I able to negotiate a step increase within my current grade for this new position? I understand there are certain limitations that apply, but if I am able to increase steps in pay grade– exactly how many steps higher could I go?

I should mention, I have a bachelor’s degree from an accredited university, as well as relevant experience outside of my federal employment for the position. I should mention that the position is open to the public, as well.

Reg’s response:

Departments and agencies vary in the latitude they give their supervisors and managers to vary the step they offer to a prospective employee. Beyond that, those who have the authority to do that will be guided by two things: the urgency of their need to fill the position and the qualifications of the applicant.

You can always ask for a higher step when you interview for the job and see how it plays out.

Got a question for the Federal Times expert? Send inquiries to: fedexperts@federaltimes.com.

A Fed Times reader asks:

“I am buying back 17 years of military time. Am I eligible for retirement after 3 years of civilian service or do I have to do 5 years of civilian service to be vested and thus eligible for retirement?

I have got conflicting information.”

Reg’s response:

You have to be vested in the retirement system before you can retire. To meet that requirement, you have to have 5 years of federal civilian service.

Got a question for the Federal Times expert? Send inquiries to: fedexperts@federaltimes.com.

A Fed Times reader asks:

“[I’m] wanting to put my time from active duty towards my retirement as GS.

Is there a form I must fill out, and what other documents are needed to prove the time I acquired while in the armed forces?

It would be very helpful for me if I could get this information to get this process started.”

Reg’s response:

You’ll need to complete OPM Form RI-20-97, Estimated Earnings During Military Service (available at opm.gov, click on Forms) and mail it to the military finance center for your branch of service along with a copy of your DD Form 214, Report of Transfer or Discharge.

The completed letter showing your estimated earnings will be returned to you. Take that letter, a copy of your DD 214, and a Standard Form 2803 (CSRS) or 3108 (FERS) (available at opm.gov, click on ‘Forms’) to your local payroll office and request an estimate of the deposit required.

Your payroll office will compute the amount you owe, plus interest, and arrange for you to make the payment in a lump sum or on a schedule of regular payments.

Got a question for the Federal Times expert? Send inquiries to: fedexperts@federaltimes.com.

A Fed Times reader asks:

“My wife is covered on my “self+1″ Blue Cross FEHB plan. She will turn 65 this summer and will be going on Medicare Parts A and B. I am still 62 and will need to remain on the FEHB plan.

Is there some way I can change my FEHB enrollment to a “self only” plan at that time, or will I have to wait until open season in the fall?

Do I need to suspend her coverage as a spouse of an annuitant in order to preserve her ability to return to an FEHB plan if her new gap insurance doesn’t work for her needs?”

Reg’s response:

There is no provision in law or regulation that would allow you to suspend your wife’s FEHB coverage.

You could, of course switch to Self Only coverage; however, if you were to die before you were able to switch back, your wife would only be covered by Medicare A and B.

Got a question for the Federal Times expert? Send inquiries to: fedexperts@federaltimes.com.

A Fed Times reader asks:

“I retired from the Marine Corps and from a local police department. Even though I paid into Social Security during my 26 years in the Corps, I did not contribute to Social Security during my time with the police department because it is a private pension system.

I was told by the Social Security rep that I am subject to the WEP because of the police department’s pension and that is the reason my Social Security check is reduced by 51%.

This doesn’t seem right since I took it upon my own to work until I was able to have two pensions, so I don’t have to live paycheck to paycheck. Is this right and if so why?”

Reg’s response:

Yes, it’s right. And it’s right because of a provision of law called the Windfall Elimination Provision. The WEP reduces the Social Security benefit of anyone who receives an annuity – in whole or part – from a retirement system where he didn’t pay Social security taxes.

You can learn more about the WEP and how it will affect you by going to ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10045.pdf.

Editor’s Note: There have been attempts in Congress and by financial advocates to repeal the WEP. Those efforts have gained some steam in the Senate especially, but there has been no formal declaration of action yet.

Got a question for the Federal Times expert? Send inquiries to: fedexperts@federaltimes.com.

A Fed Times reader asks:

“I currently have four years of creditable service in FERS. I am buying back 15 years and seven months of military time.

If I decided to leave civil service and file for deferred retirement at age 60 or 62, will the 15 years seven months count towards the five-year requirement?”

Reg’s response:

First things first: You have to have five years of actual FERS service to be vested in the retirement system.

Once you are vested, you can make a deposit to get credit for your all active duty service. If you did that, you’ll have at least 20 years of creditable service and could apply for a deferred retirement at age 60.

Got a question for the Federal Times expert? Send inquiries to: fedexperts@federaltimes.com.

A Fed Times reader asks:

“I started working for the United States Postal Service in 1986. I left in 1997. I am now 61 years old. I have seen articles online about getting a lump sum payout for my FERS.

Is that possible? If yes, how can I initiate this payout?

Is there a way to see the amount in my FERS account?”

Reg’s response:

As long as you didn’t ask for a refund of your retirement contributions when you left government, you are entitled to a refund.

You can apply for that refund by going to opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/SF3106.pdf, downloading a copy of the form, filling it out and sending it to OPM.

The mailing address is on the form.

Got a question for the Federal Times expert? Send inquiries to: fedexperts@federaltimes.com.