The Treason Note and the Silenced State

June 4, 2026

The Treason Note and the Silenced State

A president who scrawls “treason” on a stack of news clippings now wants more than two million federal workers to sign their silence. What this reveals is not a strategy for security — it is the temperament of a leader who confuses scrutiny with betrayal, and a country that cannot afford the difference.

There is a particular kind of leadership that measures loyalty not by competence or candor but by silence — and on May 26, that instinct was committed to paper. The Office of Personnel Management posted a draft notice to the Federal Register proposing a sweeping, government-wide nondisclosure agreement for federal employees, both new hires and the career civil servants who have served across administrations. The administration framed it as housekeeping. In reality, it is the latest, most consequential move in a campaign to wall off the workings of the federal government from the people who pay for it.

According to CNN’s reporting, the draft NDA is aimed squarely at curtailing what officials call the sharing of “confidential government information,” and is explicitly intended to stop internal leaks to the press. The Washington Post reported that the agreement would bar workers from disclosing a strikingly broad array of material — and would expand the kind of gag instruments already imposed at the Pentagon and a handful of other agencies to the entire executive branch. OPM Director Scott Kupor defended the measure by arguing that the private sector routinely asks employees to sign confidentiality agreements and that, as he put it to NPR, the government should not be held to a lower standard.

That comparison is a sleight of hand. A corporation protects its products and customers. A democratic government answers to the public, and its “confidential” information is, more often than not, the record of how power is used in our name. As Government Executive noted, legal experts warn the proposal could violate workers’ First Amendment rights and the statutes that shield whistleblowers — and, combined with OPM’s newly expanded power over employee “suitability,” creates a fresh pathway to purge anyone deemed insufficiently loyal.

1. The Note That Says The Quiet Part

To understand the NDA, you have to read it alongside a sticky note. Earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal and CNN reported that the president personally handed acting Attorney General Todd Blanche a stack of printed news articles about the Iran war, topped with a single word written in Sharpie: “Treason.” Officials told CNN the president has been especially furious when his private comments and war briefings reached reporters. After Blanche received the packet, the Justice Department issued subpoenas — including to the Journal itself.

Treason is the only crime defined in the body of the Constitution, and it is defined narrowly and deliberately: levying war against the United States, or adhering to its enemies. Publishing journalism the president dislikes is not treason. Telling a reporter what is happening inside an agency is not treason. That a sitting president would reach for the word — and then direct prosecutors to act on it — tells us how he understands the relationship between the government and the governed. In his framework, the public’s right to know is a national-security threat, and the reporters who serve it are enemies of the state.

“The government’s subpoenas to The Wall Street Journal and our reporters represent an attack on constitutionally protected newsgathering. We will vigorously oppose this effort to stifle and intimidate essential reporting.”

— Ashok Sinha, Chief Communications Officer, Dow Jones

The NDA is the bureaucratic expression of the same impulse. Where the treason note targets the journalists who receive information, the NDA targets the people who might provide it. Together they form a pincer: squeeze the sources, then punish the press. As the Freedom of the Press Foundation put it, a blanket NDA on millions of workers from a self-described “most transparent administration in history” is not just absurd — it would kneecap whistleblower protections, undermine the First Amendment, and inhibit the public’s right to know.

2. What It Does To The People Who Run The Government

The proposal does not land on an institution that is healthy and secure. It lands on a federal workforce already battered by a year of upheaval. The Partnership for Public Service, whose president Max Stier called the latest morale findings “deeply distressing,” reported that engagement and satisfaction have cratered. “We have every red light blinking across the entire federal government — morale is as low as imaginable,” Stier said. “There is no corner that has emerged unscathed.”

The numbers behind that sentiment are stark. The civil service shrank by roughly ten percent in a single year, and — as the Boston Globe documented — the losses fell hardest on the most experienced people in government: a 17.4 percent net decrease among 20-to-30-year veterans and a 33.2 percent drop among those with more than three decades of service. That is not trimming fat. That is institutional memory walking out the door. Onto that exodus, the administration now layers a permanent gag order.

A Brain Drain, Quantified

The federal workforce lost roughly ten percent of its people in 2025, with the steepest cuts among the longest-serving employees — a loss of institutional capacity that, experts warn, cannot be quickly rebuilt. (Pew Research)

Stability, Reversed

The government’s historic recruiting pitch was security. With protections rolled back and chaos infused into federal workplaces, that promise has been turned on its head, making it harder to attract talent. (Boston Globe)

A Loyalty Workforce

Watchdogs describe a deliberate shift from a professional civil service to a loyalist one, with “Schedule Policy/Career” rules stripping protections from career staff. (Federal News Network)

The largest federal employee union sees exactly where this leads. AFGE National President Everett Kelley told CNN the union expects the administration to push agencies to require the NDA and then fire those who refuse — calling it another attempt to purge nonpartisan career employees and replace them with loyalists who will not speak out against waste, fraud, and abuse. The National Treasury Employees Union’s Doreen Greenwald said flatly that there is no basis for forcing more than two million workers to sign such agreements.

3. The Chilling Effect, And Where It Ends

Defenders of the proposal point out that it preserves whistleblower rights on paper. The draft says nothing in the agreement shall be construed to restrict disclosures protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, as The Hill reported. But the harm of a gag order is rarely in its literal text. It is in the hesitation it manufactures.

Employment lawyer Debra Roth and others quoted by SHRM warned that the policy could chill employee speech and add a new layer of fear atop an existing dread of retaliation. The ACLU’s Esha Bhandari, speaking to Yahoo News, said the government cannot “muzzle” its workers this way, and that such broad gag orders leave the public in the dark about how their own government operates. The danger is not that every disclosure becomes illegal. It is that a worker facing the risk of discipline, removal, or even criminal exposure will simply decide it is not worth it — and the misconduct stays buried.

This is how oversight quietly dies. Inspectors general receive fewer reports. Congressional committees lose their frontline view into agency failures. The fraud goes unexamined, the dangerous policy unchallenged, the abuse unreported — not because anyone broke the law, but because the people who could speak chose, rationally, to stay silent. A workforce taught that candor is career suicide does not produce a more secure government. It produces a more dangerous one.

April 2026

At a White House podium, the president issues an ultimatum to the press over a story about a downed F-15E crew, threatening news organizations: give up the source “or go to jail.” (Salon)

May 11, 2026

The president hands acting AG Todd Blanche a stack of Iran-war articles marked “Treason”; the DOJ issues subpoenas, including to The Wall Street Journal. (CNN)

May 26, 2026

OPM posts a draft government-wide NDA to the Federal Register, opening a 30-day comment period. Unions and press-freedom groups immediately vow to fight. (TIME)

4. What This Means For The Average Person

It is tempting to file this under inside-the-Beltway politics — a fight between unions, lawyers, and the press. It is not. The federal workers being told to sign away their voices are the people who inspect the food on your table, approve the drugs in your medicine cabinet, track the storms headed for your town, protect your retirement savings, and audit the spending of your tax dollars. When they are afraid to flag a danger, you are the one left exposed.

Consider what the public has only ever learned because someone inside chose to talk: contaminated products pulled from shelves, defective equipment recalled, agencies caught wasting billions, officials caught breaking the law. Every one of those disclosures depended on a civil servant willing to risk their job. An NDA designed to make that risk feel unbearable is, functionally, a tax on your safety — paid in the information you will never receive. And the cost is not abstract: the Partnership for Public Service estimated the broader workforce upheaval has already cost the economy more than $165 billion.

Get Involved Today

Contribute to our mission and turn your concerns into action.

5. What It Says About His Priorities

Strip away the legal framing and a clarifying picture emerges. The administration cancelled the long-running Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey rather than measure morale honestly, as Federal News Network noted. It moved to strip job protections from career staff. It threatened reporters with jail. It marked journalism “treason.” And now it would bind millions of workers to silence. These are not the priorities of a leader focused on governing well. They are the priorities of a leader focused on being beyond question.

A confident administration invites scrutiny because it expects to survive it. An insecure one criminalizes it. The throughline of every action above is the same: a profound discomfort with the idea that the public might learn something the president would prefer to keep hidden. That is not strength. It is the opposite — and it raises a question that goes beyond any single policy.

Constitutional Analysis · 25th Amendment, Section 4

When Temperament Becomes A Question Of Capacity

The 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967, governs presidential succession and disability. Its most-discussed provision, Section 4, allows the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet — or another body that Congress establishes by law — to declare a president “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” transferring authority to the vice president. It was designed for moments when a president cannot, not merely will not, govern responsibly.

Those calls are no longer theoretical. In April, House Judiciary Ranking Member Rep. Jamie Raskin formally demanded a cognitive evaluation of the president and later introduced legislation to establish the independent Commission on Presidential Capacity the amendment explicitly contemplates. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi and Rep. Jasmine Crockett have each called on Vice President Vance and the Cabinet to invoke Section 4, and Sen. Chris Murphy urged colleagues to consult constitutional lawyers about it.

The constitutional argument is not that the president holds views his critics dislike. It is that a pattern of conduct — marking journalism “treason,” directing prosecutors against the press, threatening reporters with prison, and now moving to silence millions of public servants — reflects an understanding of the office incompatible with its duties. A president sworn to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” cannot treat the First Amendment, the Whistleblower Protection Act, and the public’s right to know as obstacles to be neutralized.

Honesty requires acknowledging the barriers. Section 4 has never been used to remove a president. It depends on a vice president and Cabinet who, as PolitiFact notes, remain loyal to this president — making invocation politically improbable. That is precisely why Raskin’s proposed independent commission matters: it would create a path the Constitution always envisioned but Congress never built.

But improbability is not the same as illegitimacy. The barriers are political, not principled. The fact that a remedy is hard to reach does not mean the condition it addresses isn’t real — and a leadership that systematically attacks the channels of accountability is itself the strongest evidence that the channels of accountability are needed.

Editorial Conclusion

A government-wide gag order, written in the same season a president scrawled “treason” across the work of a free press, is not a security measure. It is a confession — that this administration fears the truth more than it fears the consequences of hiding it.

The question before the country is no longer whether these actions are alarming. It is whether our institutions still have the nerve to treat them as such. Congress must reject the NDA, defend the workers and journalists in its crosshairs, and build the accountability mechanisms the Constitution always promised. A democracy does not survive on the silence of the people who serve it. It survives on their freedom to speak — and on a leadership secure enough to let them.