Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Trump’s NDA Culture
The Trump campaign is requiring nearly all employees, and even many volunteers, to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements, or NDAs. Although relatively common in business, NDAs in politics are — or were, until Donald came along — all but unheard of. And the Trump organization takes them seriously. The Trump NDAs require staffers to promise never to disparage Trump himself, members of his family, or any of his companies — in perpetuity. (Here in Silicon Valley, even aggressive NDAs typically expire after five years. An NDA in perpetuity? I myself have never even heard of such a thing.) And Trump is already suing one former staffer for $10 million for violating the NDA.
The argument making the rounds: That his NDA culture is going to make it difficult for Trump to hire really good people. Who wants the threat of a lawsuit from one of the most litigious men in American hanging over his head for the rest of his life? But in an email I just received, a politically savvy friend offers this:
Allow me to make a counter argument: maybe Washington can benefit from Trump’s NDA culture.
Apply such confidentiality to the executive branch and the world’s spared the obligatory “If Only They’d Listen to Me” memoirs by disgruntled former cabinet secretaries and “What Really Goes On At the White House” confidentials by former aides trying to cash in on their public service in speaking gigs and cable TV dough.
You hit on something recently in a podcast that I thought was really profound: just how lucrative politics has become at the staff level. It’s true of strategists like Paul Manafort, communications flacks like Joe Lockhart, who’s renting the Obama’s his house in Kalorama. Perhaps by putting a few people on mute, we eliminate a little self-promotion and axe-grinding, thus lowering the current toxicity a bit.
History would still be recorded — Bob Woodward can always pit anonymous aide vs. anonymous aide. Just so only historians profit from it.
Even at the level of everyday political operations, Trump is adding wrinkles and complications.
We shall see.
Published in Politics
I’ll add, as one certain he will lose, that what annoys me is how little is left. Much is damaged or destroyed, good & bad, but nothing is built to replace it. Nothing keeps a brand like an institution. None are to be found-
I prefer more transparency and accountability at the cost of more self-promotion and axe-grinding.
Ah but you forget that trump defines how he “wins”. He will go complete conspiracy victim talk as soon as he loses. The establishment and rigged system working against him. The NDAs are the only insurance against his narrative after losing.
NDA? What about Obama’s college records? What about Obama’s “teaching” records? I wonder what kind of threats were used to keep those hidden.
Let him. That will only make the laughter louder.
You miss the point. No college/university would ever hire a person who would do anything to harm the Democratic Party.
Let me explain further. Those cases and others deal with government employees who are already under statutory and/or regulatory obligations.
Imposing an additional NDA begs several questions.
Is it within a statutorily authorized power?
Does it conflict with statutes such as civil service?
What beyond existing statutory/regulatory obligations does it impose?
How will it be enforced?
It starts smelling like a mechanism to enforce personal loyalty to the President rather than loyalty to the Constitution and faithful execution of the law.
Any Political Candidate in a modern democracy forcing employees to sign a NDA isn’t really thinking about a free, honest and open exchange of ideas in the political arena but branding and marketing a subnormal product.
Trump needs an NDA like the Clintons need enforcers in the Press to squelch any reporting of their corruption.
My first thought on this was “Washington’s culture of leaks”. Maybe this is a good way to combat that.
Precisely my point.
It will be everyone else’s fault he lost- and like the con man he is – there will be enough credulous people after the event to keep his brand alive – provided enough NDA’s hold.
#freethedelegates
The RNC Convention is not a suicide pact – unless they choose it to be.
A Presidential candidate wants to use the legal system to silence potential critics, and some people on Ricochet praise him for it?
This is not the conservative movement I signed up for.
Sorry Bro. That has already failed.
When I went to the USAF Academy there were only two requirements before one divulged classified information; Proper Clearance and Need-to-Know.
According to my quarterly training, there are now three requirements – Proper Clearance, Need to Know, and a signed NDA. Obviously, those three were not needed when Secretary Clinton set up her email server and then the FBI found out and declined to recommend prosecution.
Trump’s NDA is evidence of Constructive Abandonment.
Both the of articles to which I linked in my original post describe the NDAs the Trump campaign is using.
The Fortune article cites an AP claim that the AP had a copy of a Trump NDA, which the AP claimed had been provided by a carefully anonymous source. The AP apparently has chosen to not publish the NDA it’s cited as claiming to have or to identify its source–we’re just supposed to take the AP’s word on this. Sounds like rumor-mongering to me.
The Vanity Fair piece just seems to be repeating the AP claims, with little new or original in its own article beyond an update from a Trump lawyer claiming that NDAs are standard business fare.
In neither case is there any description of the NDAs beyond claims of their existence and generic descriptions of what NDAs do, nor is there any publication of any NDAs alleged to be in possession of the press.
Fortune does make a passing reference to Clinton also requiring NDAs of her staffers, but the hoo-raw is centered on Trump’s NDAs.
In any event, absent an actual NDA–which, again, the AP is quoted as claiming to have, but it has chosen to not produce–it’s hard to make a coherent case that a Trump NDA will make it difficult for Trump to hire really good people beyond the existence of an NDA having that effect. And that’s hard to support. Absent an actual NDA, it’s also hard to make the case that a Trump NDA envisions an in perpetuity duration, especially given standard business fare NDAs having finite lifetimes.
Even the Post article linked to by Vanity Fair, concerning the substance of the Nunberg matter, a purported argument between two Trump staffers, contains exactly zero actual sources, just carefully anonymous “witness” and “sources” and so is just a collection of rumors. It’s hard to take such things seriously.
Eric Hines
This is typical of the Trump thinking that these aides will be working for him, when in reality they are working for the people. Any aide who signs an NDA is betraying the public trust. The public needs full disclosure, short of classified info.
So … how does this cohere with “employees” who already take an oath to preserve the Constitution?
There’s a subtle distinction about government service that Trump (and many others) seem to have forgotten. Political officeholders only have the right to appoint government employees, but those employees serve the Constitution, not the politician. The Attorney General serves the country, not the president (after all, the president already has an official lawyer). Yes, these appointees serve “at the pleasure” of the president … but they don’t serve the president. They serve the country.
Yes, the two are easily conflated, and the distinction is rarely noticed … but it suddenly becomes apparent when a politician tries to turn the government into his personal operation. A political election is not where Trump Corporation takes over the country like a corporate takeover. We are not going to become Trump’s country.
Uh, he is the nominee.
Do you actually think that his critics will play by the rules? He is virulently hated by all in the power structure for his ability to end their sinecures.
And, BTW, where does one go to sign up for a conservative movement? Certainly not within the GOP.
@peterrobinson The is just the ploy of a litigious narcissist who wants to elevate the Trump brand and family into the pantheon of American political families like Kennedy and Bush. Look at where the New York delegation is sitting at the convention–right in front of the podium. Which son or daughter will be running in the next race for the governor of New York?
As I understand it, the RNC took Trump’s side in the Trump versus NeverTrump fight. I see zero evidence that Trump is the anti-establishment. The establishment just wants to win elections, and don’t really care that much who their nominees are as long as they win. If they could dump Trump and have better chance of winning, I think they would, but at this late date a NeverTrump candidate (Cruz, etc.), regrettably, would have little chance of winning. I think the RNC would prefer another nominee, but at this point dumping him would mean losing the election, so they are perfectly willing to go along with a Trump candidacy as it the only shot at winning the 2016 election they have.
I’m not under the same obligations as the RNC. I think Trump’s chances of winning are pretty slim, and more importantly, I don’t see any evidence that he could be a good president.
Whoever goes about slandering reveals secrets; therefore do not associate with a simple babbler.
Proverbs 20:19
Not until the delegates vote him so.
I’m really torn on this one. I detest both people who write tell-alls and trash former employers, and I detest people who sue for breaking overly broad NDAs that have nothing to do with trade secrets.
Much like the election, I find myself wishing both sides could lose.
Frankly, I am surprised that more candidates or other political figures don’t use the NDA more often. I worked for a company that required NDAs not only for suppliers but for employees as well, especially on sensitive projects that would affect employees. I retired a month ago and within my retirement papers is a document that I signed stating that I won’t share information about my former employer.
Loose lips sink ships…campaigns, candidates, and everyone in-between. Why wouldn’t I want my staffers to keep their mouths shut? Politics/Campaigns is a multi-million dollar business and the investment of the candidate’s time and money (especially these days) can be irrevocably damaged by shared info. I don’t think it’s too much to ask.
I’ve signed NDAs. I don’t rubbish former employers anyway, but if I ever do disparage one, I keep it as generic as possible.
I’ve signed Intellectual Property agreements too. These generally aren’t worth the paper they are printed on. If I could do it once, I can do it again. The second version will be an improvement on the first.
I’ve also signed and initialed every page of various versions of the Espionage Act, the terms of which seem to have changed. As long as I don’t mean any harm when I commit gross negligence with classified material, all I get is a stern talking to. Right, Director Comey?
I too worked for a private company which required non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) on projects dealing with the national security or sensitive intellectual property. However, I think their use in politics or governance over and above the applicable legislation, violates the transparency in government that any citizen deserves and has a right to expect.
Really? I find that surprising. NDAs just seem like common sense to me.
Of course, up here in the Great White North, an NDA isn’t really worth the paper it’s written on because one cannot sign away a constitutional right, so when I have people sign ’em it’s more of a written gentlemen’s agreement.
@misthiocracy Would you give me some reasons why they “seem like common sense”? I’m having trouble seeing how NDAs in politics enhance the transparency of those who govern us in our Republic.
Well, I’m not a “Transparency First!” kinda guy, so I’m not sure how not enhancing transparency invalidates ’em.
People should be able to contract as they please. That being said, people who are so quick to trade away their rights deserve what they get. If they realize they made a bad deal, let them suffer in silence…forever.