Confidentiality agreements increased more than 300% among military families facing issues in privatized housing

The use of confidentiality agreements in privatized military family housing has increased by more than 300% over the past six years, which advocates say is a response to civil litigation that makes it harder to track chronic issues.

Just 15 nondisclosure agreements were signed by military families in fiscal year 2020, the year the Defense Department began tracking agreements.

That number has steadily climbed, reaching 67 agreements in fiscal year 2025, according to data obtained from the Defense Department by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and shared with Stars and Stripes.

Warren, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, secured language in the pending National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2027 that would prohibit future use of such agreements.

“For too long, the DOD has allowed privatized military housing companies to silence military families, forcing them to deal with dangerous living conditions,” Warren said in a statement. “Our troops and their families deserve better. I’ve got a bill to make sure military families have access to safe housing and don’t have to live in fear of retaliation for reporting unsafe living conditions — it’s time to get this done.”

Eileen Huck, director of government relations for the National Military Family Association, said the nondisclosure agreements add to the pressure families already feel in these situations.

“No one really wants to rock the boat; it’s easy for the contractors to put off making necessary repairs. The families who are dealing with these issues often are feeling a lot of financial pressure,” she said.

The Defense Department’s housing office must sign off on all nondisclosure agreements, also referred to as confidentiality agreements, that private housing companies draft for residents to sign to ensure they comply with federal law.

A senior official within the assistant secretary for housing’s office answered questions about the data sent to Warren but declined to provide any financial settlement information related to these agreements because each is a private civil contract.

“The department’s primary focus is safeguarding and enforcing tenant protections under the law, including verifying that families receive their mandatory 10-day legal review period before signature,” the official said.

‘Risk-averse system’

These agreements are required for residents who participate in the informal and formal dispute resolution processes available to service members and their families when they cannot agree with their landlord over conditions of a leased home, said Heather Hall, CEO and founder of the Military Housing Coalition, an organization that advocates for improvements to military family housing. The agreements often include a non-disparagement clause, which keeps the family silent on all issues they may have experienced in the home even if the process doesn’t end in a financial settlement.

It’s the price of just entering dispute resolution, she said.

“It’s because of how prevalent litigation has become,” Hall said, referencing the dozens of civil lawsuits that have been filed by military families against housing companies. “I don’t really think the companies intend for it to be this way, it’s just such a risk-averse system right now.”

In 1996, the military began phasing in the use of private companies to manage the homes available for military families on installations in the U.S. as a way to improve conditions. A Reuters news report in 2018 showed that, at some bases, families were still placed into homes with pest and rodent infestations, chronic structural issues that caused water leaks and mold growth, and exposed children to lead paint.

Since then, the military has conceded its oversight was too lax, and Congress intervened with a series of reforms.

More than 200,000 people live on military bases with private landlords, and overall satisfaction rates have improved in the last five years, according to Defense Department data.

However, families continue to come forward with stories of unsafe housing conditions, as outlined in a report Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., released last week about homes at two Georgia Army bases, Fort Stewart and Fort Benning. The investigation found that lead exposure put a newborn’s health at risk, and severe mold contamination led to emergency room visits. One family reported mice had chewed through the wiring in their stove and oven, creating a fire hazard. The problem had been reported by the previous tenants, according to the investigation.

While confidentiality agreements account for a small percentage of housing residents, they do silence residents and limit transparency, advocates agree.

“We want families to be made whole,” Huck said of dispute resolution that results in families being paid for the out-of-pocket expenses incurred during a housing issue.

“It’s also really important that we have transparency and accountability for the privatized housing contractors. If nondisclosure agreements are preventing that kind of transparency and accountability and putting families in a situation where they feel like they have to sign something, that’s not acceptable,” she said.

Helping enforce standards

The agreements only come into play for those families that make it to the dispute resolution process. There is an informal process and then a formal process. The latter has grown from just one use in fiscal year 2020 to 27 in 2024, the most recent year with complete data in the DOD’s response to Warren.

Erica Thompson, an Air Force spouse, said her family was denied using the dispute process because they had been temporarily displaced from their housing. Two years removed from housing, she said she is still facing substantial medical costs for her five children.

“This system is not set up for the service members. It’s set up to protect and shield the housing companies,” said Thompson, who is also the director of military family relations for Change the Air Foundation, which advocates for safe indoor air quality.

“When you have families sign NDAs, you’re not getting all of what’s happening so they might say it appears as though it’s working. It’s not because you have families who can’t talk about it,” she said.

The Defense Department stated those experiences do factor into how housing officials enforce standards. The housing office collects data from dispute resolution and settlement agreements to correct systemic issues, according to the senior defense official. The military services can then investigate and require corrective action plans and escalate further concerns directly to the corporate executives of the private landlord.

A public option

Warren’s office also questioned the Pentagon on awareness of a public feedback system she worked to implement to improve transparency in family housing. It offers residents a public website to share their experiences anonymously, and the landlord is required to respond within 10 business days.

However, Hall said the system is not well publicized. Even if someone knows about it, it’s too difficult to bother with, she said.

One tenant wrote in December about the challenges in an online complaint.

“Just to get into this system it took three days of back and forth. DHFS provided no warning/explanation about this. IT office had to be contacted to find my request that got ‘lost,’” the resident of Moffett Field in California wrote.

Regardless, Hall said she’d like to see the system publicized more to families through social media, as should the dispute resolution process. Right now, this information is only distributed during lease signing.