But contrary to public statements by some of his advisers, the researchers say, Trump is the first president to implement private-sector-type non-disclosure agreements for White House employees, ranging from senior advisers to interns. In that case, a judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the actress to invalidate the deal, but Mr. Trump said he would not enforce it. Similarly, no non-disclosure agreement can prevent you from speaking to the police as this is contrary to public order. White House NDAs are likely unenforceable because (1) White House staff work for the federal government, not for the president personally; Thus, (2) White House staff are protected by the First Amendment. Courts have long recognized that in addition to classified information, government employees are entitled to a change of word under the First Amendment. In the end, legal protesters and congressional leaders reached a compromise with the George H.W. Bush administration on the use of SF 312. This agreement and all of these agreements would include a provision that all whistleblower laws would replace them. This was coded in both the annual appropriation amendment and the whistleblower protection act update of 1989 and 2012. Tom Devine — the legal director of the Government Accountability Project who helped draft the compromise language in the early 1990s — told me that his group had essentially acquired a definition of classification that wasn`t as broad as Reagan originally intended. “Information must be explicitly marked as `marked as classified`. or must be for national security purposes,” Devine told me.
“You have the right to notice” that something is classified, he added. Even under Reagan`s now ignored and overly broad definition, “classable” information would have something to do with national security, Devine said. “In principle, there was this restriction,” he told me. It is also worth taking a look at the penalty for violating these agreements. According to the Post`s draft, the penalty for violating the NDA (at least at some point) has been raised to $10 million. In subsequent drafts of the agreement, this figure is likely to be reduced. But the punitive nature of the punishment increases the likelihood that these NDAs will violate the First Amendment. .