This week, the chief official in the Department of Labor told all the employees that they may face criminal liability if they talk to journalists, former employees or others about the agency’s business.
The memory sent on Monday by the Secretary of Labor Laurie Chavez-Dremer, Jihun Khan and the Propublica, claims that “people who reveal confidential information or engage in unauthorized communication with the media may face serious legal consequences.”
Among the consequences that are reported are “potential criminal penalties, depending on the nature of information and the current laws” and “direct disciplinary actions, up to the termination.”
The leadership of the leadership continued to say that “any unauthorized media communication”, regardless of what information is common and how it is divided, “will be considered as a serious offense.”
The note lists the laws, rules and leadership to explain his legal position. Among them was the regulation regarding the ethical obligations of civil servants and the law, the law on freedom of information, which guarantees the public the right to conduct certain state records.
“This post will serve your only warning,” the message reads.
The warning happens when the current and former employees of the work department talked to the media about the media the damage they see as a result of dismantling the sites of their agencyThe laws that guarantee the rights to safe workplace, honest payment and discrimination protection.
“This is very cool,” said the employee of the work department, who asked for anonymity with the fear of retaliation, Propublica said. “Never look good if you tell people never talking about what you do.”
The press secretary of the department did not immediately respond to the request for comment.
“These types of missions can cool the free stream of information in the press and the public,” said Gab Rotman, Vice President on Policy Politics. “It’s a concern.”
Civil servants do not donate their first correction by taking a job with the federal government but There are higher restrictions What information they can reveal publicly. Public institutions that process secret information, in rare cases, have initiated criminal investigations against leaks, but are usually caused Only when the leak includes Classified intelligence information about national security or protected financial information, Rothman said.
“But, as a rule, the discipline of the staff would be the discipline of the press or others, unlike criminal sanctions,” he said.
While the memorial of raising the possibility of criminal punishment was sent to the employee of the Department of Labor, it reflects the general approach of the Presidential Administration Donald Trump to protect the federal government staff.
For example, the director of the National Intelligence of Tals Gabard publicly announced Aggressive pursuit of leaks. Elon Musk, who launched the Department of Government Efficiency, underly boasted His tactics are in the introduction of leaks on his company. And Minister of Defense Pete Hegset blamed allegedly leaks Former Pentagon employees for rethinking disputes over its use of messaging application to discuss hostilities.
Federal staff of various agencies reported propublica that the air was suspected in the workplace during Trump’s second term, and there are rumors about monitoring state -owned workers. For example, in the Ministry of Agriculture, when employees have entered the system of agriculture, temporarily appeared on state computers when employees who have entered the system, saying that “unauthorized or improper use of this system could lead to disciplinary penalties, as well as civil and criminal punishments.”
The press -secretary of the agricultural department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The labor officer told Propublica that the Monday memo felt as the last attack on labor, which had already been dismissing, the costs are freezing and reorganizing.
“It was awful. It was a deeply exhausted bitter,” the employee said. “It is very difficult to work when you are in a constant state of terrorized employer.”
