More Than 100 Louisiana Governor’s Office Employees Signed Nondisclosure Agreements

At least 121 employees of Gov. Jeff Landry’s administration signed broad confidentiality agreements with the Office of the Governor, according to records obtained and analyzed by the Gulf States Newsroom and Type Investigations in reporting published July 24, 2026.

The agreements reportedly cover “information of any nature whatsoever” acquired through employment, including deliberative, legal, administrative, security, financial and personnel matters. They bar direct or indirect disclosure without the governor’s prior written consent and continue indefinitely after an employee leaves state government.

The reported scale and permanence of the agreements make the issue relevant beyond the employees who signed them. They may affect how current and former state workers communicate with reporters, lawmakers and the public about policy decisions, public spending, economic-development deals and the operation of state government.

What the governor’s office agreements say

The investigation reported that signers included senior aides, agency heads, regional directors, press staff, communications employees and people connected to the first lady’s administration. The records also included agreements signed by employees who handled public-records requests.

The agreement’s definition of confidential information is broad. It includes information learned through state employment and refers to matters such as the governor’s deliberative process, legislative privilege, attorney-client privilege, and legal, administrative, security, financial and personnel matters.

Employees agree not to disclose covered information “either directly or indirectly” without prior written consent from the governor’s office. The agreement also requires employees to sign additional agreements if requested and states that its restrictions survive separation from state government indefinitely.

The reporting does not establish that anyone has been fired, sued or disciplined under the agreements. It also does not establish that a court has ruled the agreements unlawful or unenforceable. Those questions would require additional evidence or judicial review.

How the administration explains the agreements

The Landry administration has said the agreements are intended to protect sensitive information, preserve valid legal privileges and exemptions, and route disclosures through authorized public-records custodians.

In a statement reported by the Gulf States Newsroom, Executive Counsel Angelique Freel said the agreements were intended to protect the integrity of the governor’s decision-making and public trust. The administration also said unauthorized disclosure could waive an otherwise valid privilege or exemption and that records custodians should decide what must be released or withheld.

That explanation separates two different questions. An employment agreement may set expectations for an employee’s conduct, but Louisiana’s public-records statutes determine whether a particular record is public and whether a statutory or constitutional exception applies. Signing a confidentiality agreement does not, by itself, create a new public-records exemption.

What Louisiana’s public-records law says

Louisiana Revised Statutes 44:1 broadly defines public records to include documentary materials, regardless of physical form, that are used, prepared, possessed or retained for the conduct of public business or the receipt or payment of state money, subject to exceptions in the Public Records Law and the Louisiana Constitution. The statute also defines the records custodian as the public official or public-body head with custody or control of the record, or an authorized representative.

R.S. 44:4.1 says exceptions, exemptions and limitations on public-records access must be provided in Title 44 or the Louisiana Constitution, with certain exemptions incorporated from other statutes. In practical terms, an internal contract cannot automatically expand the list of legally protected records.

R.S. 44:5 says records of the governor’s office are public records and must be handled under the Public Records Law. It specifically says records concerning fiscal or budgetary matters are public records. The statute also recognizes that records involving intraoffice communications between the governor and internal staff may be privileged from disclosure, and it permits limited confidentiality for certain security-related scheduling records.

R.S. 44:5(C) separately says those provisions do not prevent inspection, copying or reproduction of records involving money, assets, items of economic value to the state, or financial transactions controlled, handled or conducted through the governor or the governor’s office.

The framework does not mean every conversation involving a state employee is a public record, nor does it mean every public record must be released without review. A custodian must identify the record, determine whether it falls within the public-records law and apply any specific statutory or constitutional privilege or exemption.

Related agreements involving elected officials

The Gulf States Newsroom investigation also reported on a separate group of nondisclosure agreements connected to Louisiana Economic Development. By June 2026, at least 54 elected officials had signed those agreements, including both legislative leaders, 77% of Louisiana senators and 13% of House members.

Those LED agreements are not the same documents as the employee confidentiality agreements used by the governor’s office. They are related background because both practices concern how officials and employees communicate about state business, but their signatories, terms and purposes may differ.

The LED figures are particularly relevant to legislative oversight of economic-development proposals, incentives and other decisions involving public resources. The Gulf States Newsroom reported that LED officials describe its agreements as a way to let lawmakers review sensitive negotiations before they become public, and that some agreements are limited to a project while others may last for an official’s term.

What residents should watch next

The central accountability question is whether the agreements are being used only to protect information already covered by a valid privilege or exemption, or whether their broad language could discourage disclosure beyond the limits established by law.

That distinction affects residents seeking information about state contracts, economic-development incentives, agency decisions, public money and policy deliberations. It also affects lawmakers and journalists who rely on current and former employees to explain how decisions were made.

The Louisiana Legislative Auditor’s public-records guidance says a requester who is denied access may seek judicial relief under R.S. 44:35, including a court order compelling action and, in appropriate cases, attorney’s fees, costs and damages. That means disputes over particular records can be tested through requests, negotiations with custodians or litigation.

For now, the records show a broad confidentiality practice across Landry’s administration, with restrictions that reportedly remain in place after employment ends. They do not, by themselves, resolve whether every restriction is enforceable or consistent with Louisiana law. The practical consequence for residents is that access to information about state decisions may depend increasingly on how custodians, lawmakers, former employees and courts interpret the boundary between contractual confidentiality and legally protected public records.

Sources

Discover more from Interactive News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.