Politics: What’s Life Like For The Government Employees Still Working?

0:00This message comes from NPR sponsor Carvana. Making buying a car 100 % online with real, transparent pricing and customizable financing that fits your budget. Browse thousands of cars and get yours delivered. Visit Carvana.com today. Delivery fees and terms may apply. Hi, it's Jen. Just a quick heads up before we start the show. We opened our phones live for a special call-in show today. Our phones are now closed, but we'd still love to hear from you. email us at 1a at wamu.org or leave a voicemail at 855-236-1212. And as always, stay up to date with all the latest news by listening to your local NPR member station or by visiting npr.org.

0:50More than 300 ,000 federal workers have left government service since the start of the second Trump administration. Some were laid off by the administration, some took buyouts, some walked out. The cuts have hit every major agency, from the State Department to the Justice Department, which lost more than 20 percent of its legal staff since the start of the last year. That's according to a New York Times analysis published this week. Today, we're looking at how those cuts are affecting the workers who remain and add a new plan from the Trump administration. Last week, the Office of Personnel Management proposed pushing all federal employees to sign nondisclosure agreements that would prevent them from sharing internal government information.

1:31But critics warned it could discourage whistleblowers and create a new tool to push out employees it considers disloyal. I'm Jen White. You're listening to the 1A Podcast. We'll be back with more after this short break. Stay with us.

1:47New shows, new music, new movies Keeping up with pop culture sometimes feels like a full-time job Thankfully, over at Pop Culture Happy Hour It's literally our job We break down what's actually worth watching, listening to And pretending you already knew about So the next time someone says, did you see that? You can say, yeah, obviously Follow NPR's Pop Culture Happy Hour wherever you get your podcasts Welcome back to the 1A podcast. Let's get back to our conversation about the state of the federal workforce and the Trump administration's proposed tightening of information through NDAs. Joining us in studio is New York Times reporter Eileen Sullivan.

2:26She covers the federal workforce and recently wrote about the exodus of lawyers leaving the government. Eileen, welcome back to the program. Thanks so much for having me. Also with us, Max Steyer. He's the CEO of the Partnership for Public Service. That's a nonprofit that focuses on the federal workforce and the strength of government institutions. He's worked in all three branches of the federal government. Max, welcome back. Thank you so much. Eileen, explain more about this NDA plan the administration is proposing. Yes. So the administration last week proposed, they published a draft rule in the Federal Register about having agencies decide whether they want their employees to sign non-disclosure agreements.

3:06And it came as a surprise. This hasn't happened before. There are also several policies and laws in place that, you know, are already there to prevent people from saying things that, you know, would violate privacy or trade secrets. Well, here's OPM Director Scott Cooper on why he thinks the NDAs are necessary. We're trying to remind people that, look, if we are talking about policy stuff, that's what's called pre-decisional, which means we're kind of trying to figure out what the right policy should be, like respect the fact that we want to have a good dialogue on it. We want people to be honest.

3:37We want people to tell us their ideas. And, you know, it's really hard to do that when you feel like everything you say is going to show up on the front page of a newspaper. Now, OPM says the NDA policy would promote consistency across the government and better protect confidential information while preserving the right legally authorized disclosures. We got this text with a different reaction from a federal worker. You already train on what is expected of you when it comes to sharing intel and agree not to share confidential information. This sounds like they are more than likely trying to make whistleblowing a punishable offense by broadening what cannot be shared and upping penalties.

4:13Now, as you noted, Eileen, there are already laws that prohibit the improper release of classified information and laws that protect whistleblowers who expose corruption and misconduct. And NDAs are already used in parts of the government. So what would these new NDAs change fundamentally? Well, people have said that it most importantly would change a First Amendment, right? So, you know, that it would stifle people from sharing information, and public workers are not bound by any confidentiality when they're speaking in their personal capacity outside of work. Max, private companies often require employees to sign NDAs.

4:51What's the difference between NDAs in the private sector and what the administration is proposing for federal workers? So I think there are two essential differences. The first is that when you're talking about the public sector, you're talking about information that is vital to the well-being of our country and frankly is owned by the public and not owned by private individuals. The second, I think, is at least as important, and that is you have to understand context here. We already have an administration that walked in with a proposition that their goal was to traumatize the workforce. They've succeeded in doing that.

5:29In our survey of federal workers that we conducted last year, after the bulk of folks had left, we found that almost 80 % of the federal workforce felt they could not raise a violation of law or ethics without fear of retaliation. So what this means is that you have a workforce that is already deeply scared about raising what they ought to in the way of providing information to either resources inside or outside the government. And this is just further scaring the workforce for no reason at all. So that context, I think, is vital to appreciate why this is actually a really bad thing. Well, let's go to the phones.

6:11We have Jessica in St. Petersburg, Florida, former federal worker. Jessica, what's on your mind? Yeah, I used to work for the National Ocean Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. And after two government shutdowns, a hurricane, an ice storm that closed our lab, and just losing over a month of cumulative pay that I didn't get back pay for because I was a contractor, I just realized it was time for me to go. And the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration just didn't have my best interests or well-being in mind, so I left. And we'll talk about this a little bit later, but have you been able to find work outside of the public sector?

6:56I have. It's been some time now, and I do have what I think is a much better job now. So it worked out for me, for sure, but it was heartache leaving a job that I really loved. Jessica, are you still in contact with any of your former colleagues who are still working within NOAA? I am, and they are scared. They are unhappy. They are really just trying to keep their heads down and survive so they can keep having a paycheck. But everybody is looking to leave, and I know that people will continue to do so in droves if they're able to. Thanks for that call, Jessica. Let's go to a caller in Fairfax, Virginia.

7:34Dawn, you're a current federal employee. How are things right now in your agency? So I work in a safety critical agency. I'm a manager, and I think we've hit a tipping point when it comes to morale. I've been a federal employee for 15 years, and I've never experienced this level of low. My director has called me multiple times in the past couple of weeks crying. My peers are reaching out to me saying they are desperate to find ways to retire. They don't know how to support their employees. My team has gone from a team of nine to a team of four, and we're working mandatory overtime. We've got people working until 10 p.m.

8:15at night because we know we have to get the mission done, but this is just, it's not sustainable. Have you had discussions with your colleagues about this proposal to have federal employees sign these NDAs? It's come up, and, you know, people are like, well, they don't need us to sign NDAs. We're too scared to say anything anyway. So, Dawn, you're doing critical work in one of our government agencies. At this point, does it feel sustainable for you? Do you feel like this is a job you can continue to stay in? No, I started looking for other positions, and I know my peers have as well. But we work for the federal government because we love the mission, and we believe in the mission.

9:04And so to have to walk away from that and work for another organization, it just is really tough. Yeah. Dawn, thank you for sharing your story with us. Unions representing federal employees are speaking out against the new NDAs. Here's a statement from the American Federation of Government Employees. It's a union representing over 800 ,000 workers. Quote, this proposed NDA is another attempt by the administration to purge the civil service of nonpartisan career employees employees and replace them with loyalists who won't speak out against waste, fraud, and abuse. And here's Randy Irwin, president of the National Federation of Federal Employees.

9:40This is clearly yet another baseless threat to intimidate federal workers designed to muzzle employees and further politicize the civil service. Federal workers should never feel discouraged to report fraud, waste, abuse of power, and other misconduct seen at federal agencies. Max, what would the consequences be for workers who violate these proposed NDA agreements or refuse to sign them at all? Well, and just to quickly underscore what you just, I mean, your callers were so powerful in terms of the atmosphere in the agencies. But the things that are trying to be protected are allowing employees to flag violations of any law, rule, or regulation, gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, substantial and specific danger to public health and safety.

10:33So you asked earlier, you know, what's this about and why is it different in the public sector? And that's because these issues are at play. They claim, the administration claims, these are voluntary NDAs. But out of the other side of the mouth, they say that if you don't sign them, you can be fired. So I think, you know, yet again, this is an effort to further chill important speech that we need to hear from public employees. You ask what are the consequences, as you heard from the callers. I mean, these are people who fundamentally want to help the public, and they're being prevented from doing that, and they're at risk of losing their job.

11:13So that is the most fundamental risk they face. There are laws. This is not about classified information. That is not legally shared in any context. This is, again, about information the public should actually hear, and they're going to be scared to do it. Well, we have to take a quick break, but coming up, lawyers are leaving the federal government in droves. The Justice Department alone has lost more than 2 ,600 lawyers. What does that exodus mean for legal expertise inside our government agencies? And where are those lawyers going? That's just ahead. Stay with us.

11:50Let's get back into the conversation. We're talking about the Trump administration's proposal to push federal workers to sign nondisclosure agreements. A member of our tax club who works for the Department of Defense in Norfolk, Virginia, sent us this message. They painted a picture that we didn't work. They gutted protections and fired staff. Those who remain are now doing the jobs of two to three people. And now an NDA? They are silencing the federal workforce so we don't inform the public of the real truth of how this administration is wasting taxpayers' dollars. And we have Stone in Burlington, Vermont, on the line.

12:21Stone, you used to work for the USDA. What do you think about this proposal to have government workers sign NDAs? I mean, I think it's, I mean, ridiculous that what we do is, you know, community and public service and any information we, you know, build from our studies and surveys that we did. I worked under the APHIS, which is the Animal Plant and Health Inspection Services. And, I mean, more than just agriculture, where we get a lot of ecological and conservation information that is purely public information and should be shared and we shouldn't be scared to share that information. Stone, thanks for that call.

12:59We heard earlier from OPM Director Scott Cooper that he's concerned federal workers are hesitant to share their honest opinions during the policy planning process because they're afraid anything they say might be leaked. And what I want is to be able to talk about stuff, but people literally will chill their speech if they feel like everything they say is going to be, you know, kind of publicly reported. Eileen, you earlier alluded to the fact that there are rules in place that prohibit federal workers from sharing certain information. Just lay out those rules for us. Sure. I mean, there's already, like Max referred to, rules and laws about disclosing classified information that is illegal.

13:39There are policies and laws about disclosing trade secrets because the government may, for regulation purposes, be getting a lot of confidential information, and they're not allowed to disclose those. And so there's laws that ban that. Max, to your mind, where is the line between a leak that serves the public and one that harms national security or the functioning of the government? Well, so I read to you the sort of list from the statute about what is actually protected. So, you know, the clear line, again, is around classified information. And frankly, there are former federal employees that broke the law in order to release classified information that they felt was vital for the public, and they paid a price for doing so.

14:24Once again, this really is about what is a healthy organization and what's a healthy government. And it really does require, we have the mission committed workforce. It has to be a workforce that is willing to speak truth to power if we're going to actually get good information, not just to the public, but to the decision makers themselves. So I'm so glad you ran that clip from Scott Cooper and his notion that they're worried about chilling speech because they're worried that their pre-decisional conversations may be made public. He should be more worried that they're not getting the critical information that the experts inside the government should be giving them to make good decisions because they're terrified.

15:04That is a much, much larger problem. What they're doing here is disingenuous. It is not about trying to ensure that that appropriate pre-decisional conversation can take place. They're trying to keep the lid on a lot of conduct that frankly is not in the public interest and is in fact a violation of law in many instances. Well, let's go back to the phones to a caller in Bethesda, Maryland. You're a current NIH employee and you have thoughts about this proposal to have federal employees sign NDAs. What's on your mind? Yes. As a current employee, we already have the public trust type of clearance, so we're not leaking things out there.

15:52But what I do think this is exactly what the previous speakers also mentioned, that it's a way to silence us so that we don't let the public know the many different ways that this administration, especially Russell Boat and OMB, are squashing getting taxpayer funds appropriated in a timely manner. We have also very much, the experienced feds, have talked to leadership from across the aisle to let them know processes and procedures and things that make things run more efficiently and are completely silenced and or sidelined and end up with procedures and processes, they take us in circular loops.

16:41So we're not getting grants out the door because they have to be checked three or four or five times. We're not getting funding announcements out because we've been completely slashed with a number allowed. Also, they put in extra processes to keep these things basically in a black box so you never know when or if something is coming out. So it's more obfuscation, in my opinion. Thanks for that call. Let's go to Sarah in Concord, New Hampshire. Sarah, you're a former federal contractor. Your thoughts about the NDAs? uh yeah i would just say ndas usually um federal contractors are asked by their agencies to sign ndas for intellectual property purposes that's about it and these guys are being really transparent about what they're doing um they are trying to institutionalize corruption and um you know by abusing the federal workforce that's responsible for serving the american people the taxpayers you You know, we in New Hampshire really like our taxpayer dollars to be spent well.

17:48And a slush fund for January 6th rioters was not, you know, lost a lot of fans for people. Hexeth not explaining why he's not promoting people in the military. There is this anti-knowledge, anti-information, anti-science, anti-republic behavior that reminds me of, I don't know, totalitarian Soviet Russia. It's kind of Communist Party behavior. Sarah, thank you for that call. Eileen, before we move on, this NDA proposal was published, as you said, in the Federal Register. There's a 30-day public review period. How likely is it to move forward? I assume it will move forward. They don't have to take any of the comments into account if they don't want to.

18:36They may change some language in it, but usually it will move forward. But people also expect some legal challenges to it as well. Well, let's shift gears a bit here. The NDA proposal is part of a bigger story, as we've been hearing from our callers, about how the administration is reshaping the federal workforce. Eileen, in your most recent article for The New York Times, you report that more than 10 ,000 lawyers have left the federal government since the beginning of 2025. That's roughly one in five lawyers who worked in the government at the end of 2024, and includes more than 20 percent of the Justice Department's legal staff.

19:11What's going on? Well, I mean, we're hearing anecdotes about this throughout, you know, since the beginning of the administration. A lot of lawyers feel like they can't do the job that they signed up to do. They can't enforce environmental regulations. They're being asked to do things in a courtroom that they're not comfortable with. They just don't want to continue working under those circumstances. And some told me that they feel they can do more of what they originally wanted to do in the federal government outside the government right now. Well, let's go back to the phones. We've got Brianna in Florida.

19:47Brianna, you worked with the Department of Navy for 10 years. You took a deferred resignation. And you're curious about attorneys leaving the DOJ. Go ahead. Hi, thank you. I'm curious because I know we've seen a lot of inspector generals also step down, and I'm curious about the relationship, if this is, what effect this might have, because the first impeachment with Donald Trump was through an investigation from an IG complaint. So do you see any relationship or correlation with that. Thanks for that call, Brianna. Max, first just remind us about the removal of inspectors generals since the start of the second Trump administration.

20:28Yeah, and I think that's a critical point. As I mentioned earlier, I think context is everything. One of the very first things that the Trump administration did was to effectively fire just about all of the inspector generals across our government. And it has historically been the case that those have not been positions that have turned over with a change of administration. Indeed, a number of those IGs were people who Trump himself had appointed in the first term. Those are the people who have some degree of independence to help identify waste, fraud, and abuse. In addition to those IGs, especially because your caller comes from the Defense Department, they also fired the top lawyers across the services.

21:10And just to add to Eileen, who's done tremendous reporting here. The reality is that for many lawyers, they are finding themselves in conflict not just with the mission, as she identifies, but frankly with the defense of the rule of law. And this comes back to the NDA point. And that is that this is an administration that has taken the position, they can do whatever they want. And they're asking the federal employees to not blow the whistle and frankly to help them do it. For lawyers, they have an ethical responsibility that is baked into the profession to support the rule of law. And that conflict is one that is extraordinarily challenging, I think, for many lawyers.

21:51Having served at the Department of Justice and at HUD as a lawyer, it's untenable and it's wrong. And this is a critical issue for the public to know about. And thanks to Eileen, more do. Well, and Eileen, tell us more about those ethics concerns. What did you find in your reporting? People were just very uncomfortable with what they were being asked to do. And they couldn't, you know, in some cases, I spoke with a lawyer from the Interior Department, a former lawyer there, who said, you know, he's there to help serve the secretary and promote what the secretary wants. And that was in conflict with how he was, you know, also supposed to be advising his staff.

22:29And so he felt that he just he couldn't do that. I want to point people to the show we had. or if you can keep it, this past week that really focused on the grand jury process and how that's uncovering some ethical breaches in the way the administration is approaching grand juries. You can find that conversation at the 1a.org. We got this email from a DOJ lawyer. The loss of legal expertise at the DOJ is staggering. I have stayed because I fear what will happen long term if we all go. We are struggling to fill open positions and our workloads are barely manageable and grow exponentially each time another valued colleague leaves.

23:07I believe in public service and I remain with the hope that we can rebuild with a core of public servants who do want justice to be the focus of our work. Eileen, in your article, you report that federal agencies have hired about 3 ,200 lawyers since the beginning of 2025, but that isn't enough to make up for those 10 ,000 lost employees. What does the exodus mean for the agencies where these lawyers worked? well, there's just a tremendous loss of experience and institutional knowledge. Let's go back to the phones. We've got Tom in Washington, D.C. Tom, you're actually working with the Whistleblower Support Group.

23:45Tell us what you're working on. Yes, it's the Government Accountability Project, and there's no higher priority than getting the truth out about this new NDA proposal. As horrible as it is, and it can't coexist with the First Amendment, There's a carve-out in it that makes it a legal bluff as far as telling people that they can get in trouble for blowing the whistle. Buried in the fine print is what we've nicknamed the anti-gag legal addendum, which says that any restrictions in the nondisclosure agreement have to back up. They get trumped by your rights under the Whistleblower Protection Act.

24:25Those free speech rights superseded. Now, I wouldn't advise anybody to take their rights into the Whistleblower Protection Act too seriously lately because the enforcement process has been gutted and we need to get access to court and jury trials to enforce them. But at least officially, the nondisclosure agreement does not apply to information that's protected under the WPA, the Whistleblower Protection Act. And the government doesn't want the federal workforce to know that, but it's buried in the fine print. Tom, thanks for that call. Eileen, I saw you nod when Tom referenced the whistleblower protections and the fact that there's concern about whether those protections are actually being enforced.

25:09Yes. Well, Tom and I have actually talked about this before and just sort of the degradation of the whistleblower process in general. And they're trying to do this even further with their plan to take job protections away from tens of thousands of federal workers. And in that proposal, they want the whistleblower to go to somebody within their agency, which just keeps it inside the family even more. We got this email from a Department of Justice immigration attorney who wishes to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation. All of my mentors and leaders who I looked up to have left because their expertise and skill in governance was not valued.

25:55Immigration judges rely on attorneys to draft most written decisions. Over 50 percent of those attorneys have left over the past year due to work output expectations doubling and the lack of job security. Morale is very low with little to no attractive avenues for career advancement unless you aspire to be a loyalist. Also, legal access programs that help non-citizens have a fair opportunity to plead their case in court have been dismantled, even though there are regulations requiring these programs. The agency is rapidly hiring immigration judges to replace the nearly 100 they fired for granting too many legitimate asylum applications.

26:31Most of those new immigration judges have no previous immigration experience. I feel the agency has abandoned its mission of fairly adjudicating its cases. Max, what do you take away from that message? I mean, it's an incredibly distressing description of what's happening not only in DOJ, but across the entire government. And it's so important. There's so many things that are taking place, so difficult to make sense of. But to me, the broader picture is we're watching an administration overturn a basic conception of our government that has existed for at least 140 years, that it's there for the public good and not for the interests of those in charge today.