2026年5月26日 美国东部时间下午3:23 / 哥伦比亚广播公司/美联社
特朗普政府提议所有新入职和现任联邦雇员签署保密协议，以此作为打击媒体泄密的举措之一。
周二，美国人事管理局在《联邦公报》上发布公告，征求公众对一份拟议保密协议草案的意见，各联邦机构可将该协议用于“新员工和现有员工”。
公告称：“该表格旨在记录联邦雇员承认并同意遵守当前的法律义务，即保护在履职过程中获取或生成的非公开、机密或专有信息，同时明确保留依法披露信息的权利。”
人事管理局的公告附带了一份联邦机构可自愿选用的拟议保密协议草案。公告还指出，这份拟议协议“不会对员工的言论或披露权利新增实质性限制”，并“明确”保留雇员“依法披露信息的权利，包括受保护的举报人披露行为”。
人事管理局列举了多起未经授权披露机构内部通信内容的案例，其中涉及规则制定和政策制定相关的内部沟通。该局还提到了联邦调查局和国土安全部雇员未经授权披露针对移民执法行动的计划信息的案例。
例如，人事管理局在征求意见的公告中称，《纽约时报》和《华盛顿邮报》获得了有关今年1月美国突袭委内瑞拉行动的未经授权信息，并延迟发布了他们掌握的内容，以“避免危及美军士兵”。
但在突袭行动数天后，《纽约时报》执行主编乔·卡恩写道：“然而，与一些说法相反，《纽约时报》并未掌握即将开展的抓捕马杜罗行动的核实细节，也没有准备好相关报道，也没有应特朗普政府的要求延迟发布报道。”
他还表示：“尽管在本案中并不相关，但当有担忧认为披露特定行动信息可能危及美军士兵生命时，《纽约时报》确实会与军方进行磋商。我们认真对待这些担忧，有时会延迟发布报道或隐瞒细节，以防这些信息直接威胁到军人的安全。”
《纽约时报》和《华盛顿邮报》的代表未立即回应置评请求。
自特朗普总统第二任期开始以来，查明被政府认定有损其执政信息传递的泄密事件，已成为多个机构的工作重点。今年1月，联邦调查局查获了《华盛顿邮报》记者汉娜·纳坦松的手机、笔记本电脑、便携式硬盘和佳明智能手表，这是针对一名政府承包商的调查的一部分，该承包商后来因涉嫌传播机密材料被起诉。
去年，数十名记者上交了在五角大楼的门禁卡，拒绝遵守国防部长皮特·赫格斯泰特实施的新规定。根据该规定，如果记者试图报道未经该部长批准发布的信息——无论是否属于机密——都可能被驱逐出五角大楼。
美国联邦政府雇员联合会未立即回应置评请求。
Trump administration proposes NDAs for all federal employees to curb leaks
May 26, 2026 3:23 PM EDT / CBS/AP
The Trump administration is proposing that all new and current federal employees sign non-disclosure agreements as part of its crackdown on press leaks.
On Tuesday, the Office of Personnel Management posted a notice in the Federal Register asking for comment on a draft NDA that federal agencies would use for “both new and existing employees.”
“The form is intended to document Federal employees’ acknowledgment of, and agreement to comply with, current legal obligations to safeguard non-public, confidential, or proprietary information, created or obtained through their official duties, while expressly preserving the right to make disclosures authorized by law,” the notice said.
The OPM notice includes a proposed NDA that federal agencies may use if they wish. It also says that the proposed NDA “does not create new substantive restrictions on employee speech or disclosure rights” and “expressly” preserves employees’ “rights to make disclosures authorized by law, including protected whistleblower disclosures.”
The OPM cited examples of internal agency communications related to rulemaking and policy development that were disclosed without authorization. It also raised instances in which FBI and the Department of Homeland Security employees disclosed information without authorization about planned immigration enforcement actions.
For instance, the OPM’s request for comment stated that the New York Times and Washington Post had received unauthorized information on the U.S. raid in Venezuela this past January and delayed “publishing what they knew to avoid endangering U.S. troops.”
But days after the raid, New York Times executive editor Joe Kahn wrote, “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.”
He also said, “While not relevant in this case, The Times does consult with the military when there are concerns that exposure of specific operational information could risk the lives of American troops. We take those concerns seriously, and have at times delayed publication or withheld details if they might lead to direct threats to members of the military.”
Representatives for the New York Times and Washington Post did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Locating leaks that the administration deems harmful to its messaging has become a priority in multiple agencies since the beginning of President Trump’s second administration. In January, the FBI seized Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson’s phone, laptops, portable hard drives and Garmin watch, as part of an investigation into a government contractor who was later indicted for allegedly disseminating classified material.
And last year, dozens of reporters turned in their access badges at the Pentagon, instead of complying with new rules imposed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that would leave journalists vulnerable to expulsion if they sought to report on information — classified or otherwise — that had not been approved by the secretary for release.
The American Federation of Government Employees did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
发表回复