Federal employees across various agencies were left scrambling this weekend following a controversial email directive from Elon Musk, who leads the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The directive, which demanded workers to report their weekly accomplishments by 11:59 PM on Monday, has prompted widespread confusion, backlash, and revelations about the significant tensions within the federal workforce.
The email from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), titled “What did you do last week,” made it clear: failure to respond would be interpreted as resignation. Musk emphasized this directive on X, stating, "Failure to respond will be taken as a resignation," reinforcing it as part of President Donald Trump's push to streamline government operations. The announcement, made late Saturday, left many agencies caught off guard.
Reports emerged from several departments—such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—indicating agency leadership had no prior warning about Musk’s communication. Leaders at the Pentagon advised their civilian employees to hold off on any responses until legal guidance could be obtained.
According to Rear Admiral Chad Cary of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the directive took everyone by surprise, sparking immediate confusion within the ranks. Cary advised staff to refrain from submitting responses until they received more information. Similarly, Acting IRS Commissioner officials informed employees they were awaiting guidance from the Treasury, adding to the uncertainty permeated through the federal workspace.
Adding layers to the situation, the FBI, State Department, and Pentagon issued clear instructions for their employees to ignore Musk's requests. A spokesperson from the State Department remarked, "No employee is obligated to report their activities outside their department chain of command," effectively prioritizing internal protocols over Musk's directive.
This backlash culminated when FBI Director Kash Patel communicated to his staff, urging them to "pause any responses," stressing the agency's commitment to its internal review processes. The Department of Defense reiterated the same message, confirming through senior official Darrin Selnick, "When and if required, the department will coordinate responses to the email you have received from OPM. For now, please pause any response to the OPM email titled ‘What did you do last week.’”
Historically, federal employees are accustomed to their chains of command, and such overt demands from Musk have sown discord among staff members and leadership alike. Perhaps significantly, this confusion reflects not only individual agency protocols but broader discussions about the vast restructuring efforts under Trump's administration, propelled by Musk himself.
Union leaders, representing the interests of federal employees, have sharply criticized Musk's overt directives. Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, condemned the move as "cruel and disrespectful," insisting the demands to justify their jobs to Musk—whom Kelley described as “an out-of-touch, privileged, unelected billionaire”—would be met with resistance. The AFGE, which advocates for over 750,000 federal workers, vowed to challenge any unlawful dismissals stemming from Musk's controversial push for accountability.
While Trump has publicly supported Musk's aggressive approach, saying DOGE is "waging war on government waste," some within the Republican party have voiced concerns about the ramifications of such tactics. Senator John Curtis of Utah pleaded for compassion, reminding everyone involved, "If I could say one thing to Elon Musk, it’s, ‘Please put a dose of compassion in this. These are real people. These are real lives.’”
Musk’s stringent approach aligns with previous actions taken by the Trump administration, which has sought to cut the federal workforce drastically. Around 75,000 federal employees accepted buyouts amid these efforts to streamline operations, with many more positions threatened under the current economic climate and the persistence of bureaucratic reform agendas.
The episode this weekend, marked by confusion and dissent, raises questions about the efficacy and ethics of Musk's approach to governance. Analysts note it illuminates the precarious balance of power among presidential directives, agency autonomy, and the direct impact on the lives of government employees.
Even as federal agencies strive to clarify their responses post-Musk’s directive, the episode reflects the compounded challenges facing federal workers amid a significant cultural shift within the U.S. government. With such transformative changes underfoot, many are left to ponder: what does this mean for the future of employment and agency integrity within the federal system?