White House officials made to sign non-disclosure agreements - Washington Post

[webfact]

White House officials made to sign non-disclosure agreements - Washington Post

 

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump departs after attending a Friends of Ireland event at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., March 15, 2018. REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump ordered senior staff after they joined the White House to sign non-disclosure agreements following several leaks in the early months of his administration, the Washington Post reported on Sunday.

 

The agreements stipulated officials could face monetary penalties if they disclosed confidential White House information to the press or others, and were intended to remain in effect after Trump was no longer president, according to the report.

 

A draft copy of the agreement would have subjected violators to a $10 million penalty for each instance, payable to the U.S. Treasury, according to Ruth Marcus, the Post's deputy editorial page editor. Sources familiar with the final document do not remember a similarly large penalty, she said.

 

Top officials in the Trump campaign signed similar agreements, but legal experts questioned whether such an agreement would be legal for a high-ranking government employee, given constitutional free-speech protections.

 

Officials ultimately agreed to sign the agreements, in part after concluding they were likely not enforceable, according to the Post.

 

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

(Reporting by Pete Schroeder; Editing by Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-03-19

[Boon Mee]

Sounds like a capital idea! 

Too many leakers with their own personal agenda trying undermine the President. 

[BobBKK]

No problem!  don't like it?  don't work there... many of us have signed NDA's in our career's and it's part of the 'deal' that should be considered before taking up employment. To join something with the intent to 'Rat' after they pay your salary, feed your kids and put a roof over your head seems, somewhat, shameful.

[Silurian]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

Officials ultimately agreed to sign the agreements, in part after concluding they were likely not enforceable, according to the Post.

 

Most likely an NDA is not enforceable mainly due to the fact that these people are government workers and as such any work product is property of the US Government. All government records are subject to the Freedom Of Information Act of 1967. This NDA would ultimately be overturned by the FOIA.

 

Quote

What is FOIA? 

Since 1967, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has provided the public the right to request access to records from any federal agency. It is often described as the law that keeps citizens in the know about their government. Federal agencies are required to disclose any information requested under the FOIA unless it falls under one of nine exemptions which protect interests such as personal privacy, national security, and law enforcement.

 

Edited March 19, 2018 by Silurian

[sfokevin]

Trump was the first to sign at an official ceremony where he signed his as David Dennison  

Edited March 19, 2018 by sfokevin

[blisterpak67]

1 hour ago, BobBKK said:

No problem!  don't like it?  don't work there... many of us have signed NDA's in our career's and it's part of the 'deal' that should be considered before taking up employment. To join something with the intent to 'Rat' after they pay your salary, feed your kids and put a roof over your head seems, somewhat, shameful.

Except that these people don't work for Donald Trump. He doesn't pay their salary. They work for the United States of America. 

[wwest5829]

2 hours ago, BobBKK said:

No problem!  don't like it?  don't work there... many of us have signed NDA's in our career's and it's part of the 'deal' that should be considered before taking up employment. To join something with the intent to 'Rat' after they pay your salary, feed your kids and put a roof over your head seems, somewhat, shameful.

Wow! Let me guess...coming from a Republican, Trump leaning conservative direction. I take employment under a US government entity, finding out after awhile that the administration is doing something potentially illegal, immoral or fattening and you say I do not have an obligation to let the citizenry know? Ha! Fat chance. Oh, and they did me a favor hiring me? Not a mutual balanced interest? Right, great advertisemnent for why there is a need for strong unions.

[mike324]

Trump supported and used information that was leaked so he can use/have dirt on his opponent. What a hypocrite as a President.

[zaphod reborn]

4 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Sounds like a capital idea! 

Too many leakers with their own personal agenda trying undermine the President. 

And in Trump's SOP, a constitutional and civil rights violation.  Who is going to pay for all the legal and settlement costs when Trump is impeached?

[farcanell]

Putin would be even prouder, if trump started sending any staffers with scruples, to a gulag...,maybe trump can siphon some money away from the wall, and build a cool gulag in northern Alaska ????

[dunroaming]

7 hours ago, BobBKK said:

No problem!  don't like it?  don't work there... many of us have signed NDA's in our career's and it's part of the 'deal' that should be considered before taking up employment. To join something with the intent to 'Rat' after they pay your salary, feed your kids and put a roof over your head seems, somewhat, shameful.

Fair point.  I think anyone signing up for Trumps swamp knows what to expect, lots of lies, back stabbing and denials and an expectation to suck up to the moron POTUS twenty four hours a day!

 

By agreeing to work for Trump you should accept the consequences of that decision

[BobBKK]

On 3/19/2018 at 9:40 AM, blisterpak67 said:

Except that these people don't work for Donald Trump. He doesn't pay their salary. They work for the United States of America. 

So to Rat on the United States of America is ok then?  you have a weird sense of ethics. If you SIGN an NDA then abide by it.

[BobBKK]

22 hours ago, wwest5829 said:

Wow! Let me guess...coming from a Republican, Trump leaning conservative direction. I take employment under a US government entity, finding out after awhile that the administration is doing something potentially illegal, immoral or fattening and you say I do not have an obligation to let the citizenry know? Ha! Fat chance. Oh, and they did me a favor hiring me? Not a mutual balanced interest? Right, great advertisemnent for why there is a need for strong unions.

I'm a Bernie, pro-choice, life-long socialist so your stereotyping fails significantly and is part of the problem. You think you have the right to make moral judgments on behalf  'of the citizenry'   when in fact you are paid a salary to do a job. If you don't like it don't do it and if you feel your 'precious ethics' are compromised grow some balls and REFUSE to sign the NDA don't sign then get all righteous!  what has happened to the US these days?

[mtls2005]

So much for "transparency", and the First Amendment.

 

I can't imagine how these NDA's would hold up if tested legally? They seem to have been used as a cudgel/threat/loyalty test?

 

Do they include the Dr. Evil "One-Million Dollar" penalty?

[BobBKK]

13 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

So much for "transparency", and the First Amendment.

 

I can't imagine how these NDA's would hold up if tested legally? They seem to have been used as a cudgel/threat/loyalty test?

 

Do they include the Dr. Evil "One-Million Dollar" penalty?

 

They are standard practice for decades, I signed one 15 years ago and are usual for senior staff or staff working in sensitive areas. Some are trying to suggest this is something 'new' it isn't.  It simply states "you will be working on sensitive issues or client confidentiality please confirm you will not reveal these to others and if you do so you will be subject to legal penalty'.  Trying to politicize this is wrong and if you sign it you should be held accountable if you break the promise. It's a contract. 

[mtls2005]

8 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

They are standard practice for decades, I signed one 15 years ago and are usual for senior staff or staff working in sensitive areas. Some are trying to suggest this is something 'new' it isn't. 

 

You worked in the White House 15 years ago and had to sign an NDA? Please feel free to expand, without violating your NDA of course.

 

I think every employment contract over the last 50 years probably has some NDA wording. 

 

Not sure how these are used by the U.S. government, except to say that government employees may be required to sign NDAs with private firms when reviewing future product details.

 

This is more about the White House and the use of NDAs.

 

 

Trump Can’t Legally Make New Staff Sign NDAs—Yet

 

In an interview with The Washington Post in March, Trump told reporter Robert Costa that if he won the White House, he would want to require his new team, who would all be federal employees, to also sign NDAs.

 

“I don’t know, there could be some kind of a law that you can’t do this,” he said (fact check: true). “But when people are chosen by a man to go into government at high levels and then they leave government and they write a book about a man and say a lot of things that were really guarded and personal, I don’t like that.”

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-cant-legally-make-new-staff-sign-ndasyet

 

 

[spidermike007]

On 3/19/2018 at 7:49 AM, Boon Mee said:

Sounds like a capital idea! 

Too many leakers with their own personal agenda trying undermine the President. 

Not a real issue. He does plenty of undermining of himself, his administration, and his policy objectives, entirely on his own. He just cannot help but shoot himself in the foot, on a daily basis. 

 

He needs a disclosure agreement. According to Priebus, the amount of discord, disorganization, and chaos in the White House is 50 times what has been reported! 

 

Tiny DT. The art of moving America backwards, and lowering the quality of life for the average American. 

The art of I cannot make a deal to save my life. 

The art of losing talent in droves, and replacing them with sycophantic fools, devoid of talent or experience. Like The appointment of Lynne Patton, a wedding planner and longtime Trump family associate, to head the Housing and Urban Development's office for New York and New Jersey, and the talk show host that he just appointed as a chief economic advisor, because he talk smooth and looks good on TV. Good one Don.

 

The art of not being able to fill vacancies, and leading a nation, without the help of key appointees. The Trump administration will usher in the second quarter of its presidential term with hundreds of vacancies still left to fill in departments throughout the administration. According to the Washington Post and Partnership for Public Service, only 241 key positions requiring Senate confirmation — out of 633 — have been confirmed as of Jan. 18, with 244 positions still without a nominee. The 633 key positions are a small portion of over 1,200 total positions requiring Senate confirmation, the Post noted. Trump’s sluggish staffing stands in stark contrast to his predecessors. According to the Post, Trump had 301 total confirmed nominees by Jan. 18, as compared with 452 confirmations by former President Barack Obama, 493 by George W. Bush and 471 by Bill Clinton at the same point in their terms. 

[mtls2005]

On 3/19/2018 at 7:49 AM, Boon Mee said:

Sounds like a capital idea! 

Too many leakers with their own personal agenda trying undermine the President. 

 

To say that the White House (with all these NDAs signed) leaks like a sieve is an insult to sieves everywhere.

 

Note that Trump also likes leaks - no, don't go there - and uses staff to leak all sorts of information, both to shred opponents, and to gauge push-back on his odd ideas.

 

 

[Opl]

On ‎19‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 1:49 AM, Boon Mee said:

Sounds like a capital idea! 

Too many leakers with their own personal agenda trying undermine the President. 

 

Norm Eisen

 

✔ @NormEisen

 

White House lawyers who knowingly participated in a  scheme to illegally coerce  unrepresented non lawyer employees & deprive them of First Amendment and other rights could be subject to bar discipline for violating ethics rules —and maybe even lose their licenses https://twitter.com/billkristol/status/975520281799352321 …

2:19 AM - Mar 19, 2018 · Washington, DC

•  
  10.7K
•  
  4,843 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

[mtls2005]

Not that I'd expect the Trump WH and the "lawyers" to give a rats a$$ about the Constitution....

 

 

 

https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-statement-white-house-nondisclosure-agreements

 

MARCH 18, 2018

NEW YORK — President Trump reportedly had senior White House staff members sign nondisclosure agreements at the start of his administration, according The Washington Post.

Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, had this reaction:

 

“Public employees can’t be gagged by private agreements. These so-called NDAs are unconstitutional and unenforceable.”

[Thakkar]

On 3/19/2018 at 6:36 AM, webfact said:

White House officials made to sign non-disclosure agreements

 

Why? Did Trump have sex with EVERYONE in the Whitehouse??

[janclaes47]

On 20/03/2018 at 10:43 AM, mtls2005 said:

You worked in the White House 15 years ago and had to sign an NDA? Please feel free to expand, without violating your NDA of course.

BobBKK didn't say that he ever worked in the white house, you are making up things as usual in your Trump hate speeches.

[mikebike]

On 3/19/2018 at 7:49 AM, Boon Mee said:

Sounds like a capital idea! 

Too many leakers with their own personal agenda trying undermine the President. 

Yeah, that first amendment free speech thang is a pesky annoyance... best be rid of it altogether.

[mikebike]

On 3/19/2018 at 8:36 AM, BobBKK said:

No problem!  don't like it?  don't work there... many of us have signed NDA's in our career's and it's part of the 'deal' that should be considered before taking up employment. To join something with the intent to 'Rat' after they pay your salary, feed your kids and put a roof over your head seems, somewhat, shameful.

Yep. I love subjecting my free speech to faceless corporate overlords... oh wait, no I don't.... I started my own business(es) shortly after my first corporate gig began and I realized they wanted my soul and first born.

[mikebike]

On 2018-03-20 at 9:49 AM, BobBKK said:

So to Rat on the United States of America is ok then?  you have a weird sense of ethics. If you SIGN an NDA then abide by it.

 

 

 

Yep. If you sign on to EvilInc with an NDA you better abide... Never - ever - worry about abuses or illegalities... Apparently Bob thinks its more ethical to abide by a NDA than to do the right thing.

[mikebike]

On 2018-03-20 at 9:53 AM, BobBKK said:

I'm a Bernie, pro-choice, life-long socialist so your stereotyping fails significantly and is part of the problem. You think you have the right to make moral judgments on behalf  'of the citizenry'   when in fact you are paid a salary to do a job. If you don't like it don't do it and if you feel your 'precious ethics' are compromised grow some balls and REFUSE to sign the NDA don't sign then get all righteous!  what has happened to the US these days?

Of course... Corporate entities are ALWAYS up front about their illegal practices and it is so easy to determine their corporate ethics BEFORE you sign on and learn their internal culture.

 

What world do you live in?

[mikebike]

On 2018-03-20 at 10:28 AM, BobBKK said:

 

They are standard practice for decades, I signed one 15 years ago and are usual for senior staff or staff working in sensitive areas. Some are trying to suggest this is something 'new' it isn't.  It simply states "you will be working on sensitive issues or client confidentiality please confirm you will not reveal these to others and if you do so you will be subject to legal penalty'.  Trying to politicize this is wrong and if you sign it you should be held accountable if you break the promise. It's a contract. 

Nope, not new to try and silence any whistleblowers or literally ANY employee with a concern about how things are done... The fact that you see this as a "sensitive issues" relating to business secrecy (all hail the corporate overlords) rather than a "stifle any dissent" declaration is troubling for a self-confessed social democrat.

[Thakkar]

WH staff are hired by The Administration, but they work for The People. If they see wrong-doing by the administration, it is their duty to tell their ultimate employer, The People. 

[BobBKK]

20 hours ago, mikebike said:

Of course... Corporate entities are ALWAYS up front about their illegal practices and it is so easy to determine their corporate ethics BEFORE you sign on and learn their internal culture.

 

What world do you live in?

A world gone mad is the world I live in. Where being PC is more important than truth, where liberals think they are left wing and where debate is crushed with invective.

 

I loathe corporate entities, think Trump is a megalomaniac ego worshiping nutter along with Pence. I am VERY pro-choice, pro-weed and pro-free speech however I do not believe that individuals have the right to break their promises based upon their petty political individual leanings. That leads to chaos.

 

 

[BobBKK]

19 hours ago, Thakkar said:

WH staff are hired by The Administration, but they work for The People. If they see wrong-doing by the administration, it is their duty to tell their ultimate employer, The People. 

WH staff are hired by The Administration and serve at The Presidents pleasure. Full stop (it has always been this way).