"If I were a commander today, I would not sign an NDA like the one reportedly being circulated in the Southern Command theater. Not out of defiance, but out of respect for the oath I took to support and defend the Constitution. I would continue to safeguard classified information with the same care I always did"but I would not allow a redundant or politically motivated document to interfere with lawful communication between the armed forces, civilian leaders, and the representatives of the people. Refusing to sign wouldn't be disobedience; it would be fidelity to both law and principle."
Mark Hertling
"Why Commanders Don't Sign NDAs"
www.thebulwark.com

One more time: Soldiers don't serve individuals; they serve the Constitution. They don't conceal truth from oversight; they protect truth from exploitation. There's a difference between secrecy that saves lives and secrecy that is based on misplaced loyalty. Our system is designed to tell those apart.

I understand why businesses need NDAs, but NDAs have no place in our government. They belong in corporate boardrooms, not command tents. They substitute legal fear for professional trust, and in doing so they erode the very foundation on which military leadership stands.

Because, in the end, this isn't about secrecy at all"it's about trust. Trust in the laws that already govern classified information. Trust in the officers and NCOs who have spent their careers safeguarding it. Trust in the system of checks and balances that keeps our military strong, apolitical, and accountable. Once that trust is broken"once leaders use the tools of secrecy to silence rather than to secure"it cannot be restored by any number of signatures on a form.