White House Officials Made To Sign Non-Disclosure Agreements: Washington Post

[edpc]

(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.

https://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idINKBN1GV0DC

[edpc]

Paying their salaries must be really tough on Cohen’s home equity line.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I thought this was illegal?

[Right_in_Virginia]

I thought this was illegal?

Non-disclosure, Non-Compete and Non-Disparagement Agreements are SOP in the private sector.

The agreements are drawn with legal review to prevent the agreement from being thrown out in court if/when it is breached.   The key to a successful agreement is the reasonableness of its definitions and parameters.  Some are thrown out in court, but many are not.

Forced testimony (subpoena) in a legal dispute will override an agreement regardless of its reasonableness.

[Hoodat]

Hillary Clinton signed a non-disclosure aggreement.

[LauraTXNM]

Non-disclosure, Non-Compete and Non-Disparagement Agreements are SOP in the private sector.

The agreements are drawn with legal review to prevent the agreement from being thrown out in court if/when it is breached.   The key to a successful agreement is the reasonableness of its definitions and parameters.  Some are thrown out in court, but many are not.

Forced testimony (subpoena) in a legal dispute will override an agreement regardless of its reasonableness.

Do you think it's legal for these agreements to remain in effect after Trump leaves the White House?

[Right_in_Virginia]

Do you think it's legal for these agreements to remain in effect after Trump leaves the White House?

Why wouldn't they be?

[LauraTXNM]

Why wouldn't they be?

I was thinking about the confidentiality of all White House dealings and just wondering.

Hmmm, isn't Omarosa supposed to be writing a book? 

[Right_in_Virginia]

I was thinking about the confidentiality of all White House dealings and just wondering.

Hmmm, isn't Omarosa supposed to be writing a book?

The parameters/definition of "confidentiality" are standard in the agreement and, other than Non-Competes, do not usually include a sunset provision --- this would need to be added to the agreement.  If a breach is triggered, the situation will almost always go before the courts.

I do not know if Omarosa signed any agreement while working at the WH ... but if she did, writing a book would likely trigger legal action.

What is most interesting about this, IMO, is this is the first time private sector SOP is being applied to WH personnel.  I'm sure it will go before a judge sooner or later ---someone's going to bitch about it.

[LauraTXNM]

The parameters/definition of "confidentiality" are standard in the agreement and, other than Non-Competes, do not include a sunset provision.  If a breach is triggered, the situation will almost always go before the courts.

I do not know if Omarosa signed any agreement while working at the WH ... but if she did, writing a book would likely trigger legal action.

@Right_in_Virginia  Thanks for the explanation; I'd wondered about that.  Do you think Bannon could be sued for violating a NDA?

[edpc]

From June 2016.....


“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,” Trump said in March.

**********************

Trump’s campaign would not make the candidate available for an interview to expand on his comments.

**********************

The real estate mogul did acknowledge to the Post that “it’s a different thing” to require federal government employees to sign nondisclosure forms.

http://fortune.com/2016/06/21/donald-trump-nda/

[aligncare]

Sounds reasonable to me. Look at the chaos that results from leaks. They can interfere in the process of negotiations between executive and legislative branches and can put doubt in the minds of voters and may even improperly sway election results.

They could cause inaction and delay for weeks or months the administration of necessary changes to federal regulations. Elected officials may become embroiled in controversy over false or misleading information put out by disgruntled low level staffers.

Leaks are not helpful in my opinion. But to be clear, there is a difference between the purposes of leaking of information and what whistleblowers are attempting to do in identifying corruption or mismanagement.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Sounds reasonable to me. Look at the chaos that results from leaks. They can interfere in the process of negotiations between executive and legislative branches and can put doubt in the minds of voters and may even improperly sway election results.

They could cause inaction and delay for weeks or months the administration of necessary changes to federal regulations. Elected officials may become embroiled in controversy over false or misleading information put out by disgruntled low level staffers.

Leaks are not helpful in my opinion. But to be clear, there is a difference between the purposes of leaking of information and what whistleblowers are attempting to do in identifying corruption or mismanagement.

Whistleblowers are protected under separate legislation and the courts have upheld their rights.

[Concerned]

The WaPo piece being referenced in the link in the OP is actually an opinion piece written by Ruth Marcus (who's decidedly anti-Trump from what I've seen).  As noted in the link from the OP there was speculation in the WaPo piece that staffers signed the agreement assuming it was legally unenforceable due to the first amendment.  From the referenced WaPo opinion piece (which I think is behind a paywall):

Unlike employees of private enterprises such as the Trump Organization or Trump campaign, White House aides have First Amendment rights when it comes to their employer, the federal government. If you have a leaker on your staff, the cure is firing, not suing.

“This is crazy,” said attorney Debra Katz, who has represented numerous government whistleblowers and negotiated nondisclosure agreements. “The idea of having some kind of economic penalty is an outrageous effort to limit and chill speech. Once again, this president believes employees owe him a personal duty of loyalty, when their duty of loyalty is to the institution.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-nondisclosure-agreements-came-with-him-to-the-white-house/2018/03/18/226f4522-29ee-11e8-b79d-f3d931db7f68_story.html?utm_term=.76c1958b77ad

[edpc]

As the article from Fortune magazine noted, this is less about leaks and security in the administration and more about staff members potentially writing books that are less than flattering. That’s rather amusing, considering he’s the king of disparagement.  I believe he will quickly find out there are different rules for Trump the businessman and Trump the president.

[LauraTXNM]

@Concerned @edpc  Thanks for the helpful links, you all!

[libertybele]

The parameters/definition of "confidentiality" are standard in the agreement and, other than Non-Competes, do not usually include a sunset provision --- this would need to be added to the agreement.  If a breach is triggered, the situation will almost always go before the courts.

I do not know if Omarosa signed any agreement while working at the WH ... but if she did, writing a book would likely trigger legal action.

What is most interesting about this, IMO, is this is the first time private sector SOP is being applied to WH personnel.  I'm sure it will go before a judge sooner or later ---someone's going to bitch about it.

Just out of curiosity RIV, do you have a degree in law of some sort?

[libertybele]

Sounds reasonable to me. Look at the chaos that results from leaks. They can interfere in the process of negotiations between executive and legislative branches and can put doubt in the minds of voters and may even improperly sway election results.

They could cause inaction and delay for weeks or months the administration of necessary changes to federal regulations. Elected officials may become embroiled in controversy over false or misleading information put out by disgruntled low level staffers.

Leaks are not helpful in my opinion. But to be clear, there is a difference between the purposes of leaking of information and what whistle blowers are attempting to do in identifying corruption or mismanagement.

But in the same light, wouldn't the non-disclosure agreements prevent one from whistle blowing or testifying?  Isn't this what the Stormy Daniels lawsuit is about?  Supposedly she signed a non-disclosure agreement of some sort stating that she wouldn't discuss or admit to having an affair with Trump?

[Sanguine]

But in the same light, wouldn't the non-disclosure agreements prevent one from whistle blowing or testifying?  Isn't this what the Stormy Daniels lawsuit is about?  Supposedly she signed a non-disclosure agreement of some sort stating that she wouldn't discuss or admit to having an affair with Trump?

I don't think an NDA can be used in a criminal situation. 

[LauraTXNM]

But in the same light, wouldn't the non-disclosure agreements prevent one from whistle blowing or testifying?  Isn't this what the Stormy Daniels lawsuit is about?  Supposedly she signed a non-disclosure agreement of some sort stating that she wouldn't discuss or admit to having an affair with Trump?

I think she's arguing that Trump never signed the agreement, so it's void?

[Victoria33]

All Trump company employees have to sign nondisclosure document when they leave.  He's doing what he did with his company.

[Right_in_Virginia]

But in the same light, wouldn't the non-disclosure agreements prevent one from whistle blowing or testifying?  Isn't this what the Stormy Daniels lawsuit is about? 

No and no.