Trump’s nondisclosure agreements for federal employees are authoritarian and unenforceable.
When we think about all the ways the Trump presidency has exploited the lines between the historically and constitutionally circumscribed role of the president and his businesses, it’s conflict-of-interest concerns that are most often implicated. There are the questions surrounding the Trump family businesses overseas, issues related to his continuous apparent violation of the foreign emoluments clause of the Constitution, the recent and incredibly troubling revelations around Jared Kushner’s family business interests in Qatar, and countless conflicts that we don’t even know about.
But in a column on Sunday, Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post pointed to perhaps the most pernicious conflation of business and government yet by the president. One year ago, Trump reportedly began a practice of requiring, as he had done in his campaign, some federal employees—such as senior White House staff—to sign private nondisclosure agreements. Violations of those agreements would supposedly result in “serious damages” and remain enforceable beyond Trump’s presidency. Once again, Trump’s norm-breaking provides us with yet another teachable civics moment, if for no other reason than to lament yet another of Trump’s autocratic innovations. While these agreements are almost certainly unenforceable—as Marcus notes, federal employees, unlike their private-sector equivalents, have First Amendment rights—they can still potentially do significant damage to the republic.
To the extent the president’s understanding of the law means anything here, he was interviewed by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa in April 2016 and asked by Costa, quite directly, whether he was “going to make employees of the federal government sign nondisclosure agreements.” Trump said:
Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementI think they should. … And I don’t know, there could be some kind of a law that you can’t do this. 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. I mean, I’ll be honest. And people would say, “Oh, that’s terrible, you’re taking away his right to free speech.” “Well, he’s going in,” I would say … I do have nondisclosure deals. That’s why you don’t read that.
Parsing Trump’s language through the contradictions and ignorance is never easy, but at the very least he appears to grasp that there’s a free speech component to this issue. What he doesn’t appear to appreciate in the slightest is that it’s not for sale to him. Here’s more from that exchange with Costa and Woodward:
Advertisement AdvertisementTrump: I don’t like people that take your money and then say bad things about you. OK, you know, they take your …
Costa:But it’s so different when you’re in the federal government.
Trump:It’s different, I agree. It’s different.
Costa: But you are recommending nondisclosure …
Trump: And I tell you this, I will have to think about it. I will have to think about it. That’s a different thing, that I’m running a private company and I’m paying people lots of money, and then they go out and …
Woodward:The taxpayers are paying the other people in the federal government.
Trump:Sure, sure. They don’t do a great job, and then you fire them, and they end up writing a book about you. So it’s different. But I will say that in the federal government it’s a different thing. So it’s something I would think about. But you know, I do right now—I have thousands and thousands of employees, many thousands, and every one of them has an agreement, has a … I call it a confidentiality …
Costa and Woodward are gently attempting to lead Trump to a democratic axiom most Americans take for granted—the taxpayers pay White House officials, not Trump. White House officials cannot, in their official capacity, contractually and legally pledge allegiance to anyone other than the taxpayers. Trump placates his interviewers with a dismissive “sure, sure” and immediately betrays his autocratic understanding of the relationship between executive branch employees and their chief executive by expressing his fear that an employee may “end up writing a book about you.” The speech of federal employees is already constrained, in some cases for obvious enough reasons—some information is classified, some information raises national security concerns, and so on. It is not constrained, however, by the president’s desire for personal privacy.
Advertisement AdvertisementThe essence of the conflicts-of-interest problems posed by the Trump presidency is that we citizens would like to know in advance whose interests are being represented when the president is executing laws, advocating policy, negotiating with foreign nations, or alternately pumping/trashing particular companies on Twitter. Is it us? Or is it the Trump Organization? The idea behind conflicts-of-interest laws is to obviate the need to confront the question at all, because discerning anyone’s intent is always difficult, much less discerning the intent of a president whose words change as easily as the weather.
Advertisement AdvertisementThe Marcus story affords a telling example of where the president comes down on this citizenry versus business quandary. By having his staff sign nondisclosure agreements with civil penalties—presumably via liquidated damages clauses—that survive his presidency, Trump is effectively rendering his staff’s oaths to “support and defend the Constitution” subordinate to a separately negotiated oath to Donald Trump in his personal capacity. His intent couldn’t be more clear: Federal employees are really Donald Trump employees.
Advertisement His intent couldn’t be more clear: Federal employees are really Donald Trump employees.These agreements are, in all likelihood, legally deficient in a fairly elementary way. Absent consideration (i.e., the thing received by contracting parties in exchange for their agreement to perform/remain silent/forego rights), any nondisclosure agreement would in all likelihood be deemed invalid. Any nondisclosure agreement entered into by a federal employee owing civil damages to any person, let alone the president, also begs the appalling question of what consideration those employees could possibly have received separate and apart from their salaries, which are statutorily prescribed and reported annually to Congress. If they did receive some benefit apart from their salaries—or if the job, and thus the salary, itself was contingent upon signing the agreement—it would be worth contemplating what laws such an arrangement might violate.
Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementThe far stronger likelihood is that consideration isn’t present here, rendering these alleged agreements little more than a bullying, speech-chilling, calculated bluff. Marcus cites a draft agreement that makes penalties payable to the federal government (as opposed to Trump personally), but it’s difficult to imagine how that bit of drafting slipperiness would matter, except to attempt to obfuscate that Trump is the real party to the agreement and federal employees are obligees. According to Marcus, some who were reluctant to sign ultimately did so because they figured they were unenforceable anyway. Barring some dark authoritarian turn in our other branches of government, these employees were absolutely correct about this last part.
These alleged nondisclosure agreements represent an attempt to purchase the free speech rights of federal employees for the sake of Trump’s personal protection, paid with only an empty, but perhaps effective, threat. To say such a threat cheapens the presidency grossly understates the constitutional repugnancy of these agreements. This effort reveals the president’s view of himself as an autocratic leader and of his place within the American system as being above it. It further demonstrates his blithering ignorance and disdain for even the simplest and purest of American concepts like free speech and public service.
Tweet Share Share Comment(责任编辑:关于我们)
-
Apple to start manufacturing iPhone Pro in India, report claims
The first iPhone Pro models to be made in India could be coming as soon as September or October this ...[详细] -
Huawei Mate X hands on: The most promising foldable phone yet
The race to build the best foldable phone is officially on.Not to be outdone by Samsung's Galaxy Fol ...[详细] -
“西荔王”陈迪:阳西荔枝红了,儒洞乡亲富了,我很有成就感_南方+_南方plus人群中,记者发现了一个忙碌的身影,他一边指导工人打包,一边跟到场的采购商交流,还不时处理手机上收到的各方信息。“这是今年我 ...[详细]
-
职业教育助力乡村振兴,他们这么干!_南方+_南方plus"科技赋能乡村 职业教育先行"。5月25日,职业教育助力乡村振兴发展论坛暨产业发展大会在深圳召开。本届大会由深圳市天天学农网络科技有限公司与全国 ...[详细]
-
广东超一半的北运淡水鱼来自这里!全链发力打响“南海鱼”金字招牌
广东超一半的北运淡水鱼来自这里!全链发力打响“南海鱼”金字招牌_南方+_南方plus8月下旬,位于佛山市南海区的广东何氏水产有限公司车水马龙,一辆辆活鱼运输车整装待发,热闹非凡。立秋过后,我国华北、西 ...[详细] -
雅安日报讯“这里的风光非常漂亮,大熊猫很可爱。”昨3)日,法国驻成都总领事馆总领事鲁索、副领事高宁一行到中国保护大熊猫研究中心雅安碧峰峡基地参观考察时,对雅安的大熊猫和自然风光表现出浓厚的兴趣。“这里 ...[详细]
-
“西荔王”陈迪:阳西荔枝红了,儒洞乡亲富了,我很有成就感_南方+_南方plus人群中,记者发现了一个忙碌的身影,他一边指导工人打包,一边跟到场的采购商交流,还不时处理手机上收到的各方信息。“这是今年我 ...[详细]
-
April emerges as Park’s departure time
Following President Park Geun-hye’s ambiguous offer to cut her term short, a timetable has emerged f ...[详细] -
特写|在农事定向大赛遇见和美乡村_南方+_南方plus随着“发现和众创乡村价值”的鸣笛声响起,上千名旅乡人和原乡人在茂名市高州分界镇杏花村开跑。大暑前夕,他们因2024年广东省第一届农事运动会·广东农 ...[详细]
-
The Samsung Galaxy S8 probably looks exactly like this
There are no secrets. It's a hard truth Samsung is learning over and over again as one micro-leak af ...[详细]
'Black Myth: Wukong' PS5 review in progress: A potential masterpiece
China's facial recognition tech leads to drop in N. Korean defectors
- 实干担当抓落实 多措并举促发展
- 职业教育助力乡村振兴,他们这么干!
- Opposition rejects Park’s offer, sets next Friday as final date for impeachment
- Park impeachment still a go: Opposition
- Yes, big spiders are spreading in the U.S. No, they're not flying.
- NK most likely to use nuclear weapons as means of coercion: US intelligence report
- 'I'm always available’: Mueller