Multiple U.S. federal agencies, including the FBI, State Department, and the Pentagon, have defied Elon Musk’s directive requiring federal employees to list their accomplishments from the previous week or risk losing their jobs. This resistance has created confusion and chaos within the federal workforce, just a month after President Donald Trump returned to office with a mission to reduce government size and costs.
Elon Musk, head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), issued the order on Saturday, giving employees 48 hours to submit five bullet points summarizing their work. In a post on X, Musk stated that failure to respond would be treated as a resignation. The email, titled “What did you do last week?” originated from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) but did not explicitly mention job termination as a consequence.
The directive quickly divided federal agencies. The Department of Health and Human Services initially instructed employees to comply but reversed its decision within hours, asking workers to pause their responses. The FBI, led by Director Kash Patel, told its staff to disregard the order, emphasizing that performance evaluations would follow standard internal procedures. The State Department and Pentagon provided similar guidance, assuring employees that departmental leadership would handle the request.
Conflicting directives left employees unsure of how to respond. Some agencies encouraged compliance, while others cautioned against it, resulting in widespread confusion. The inconsistency in messaging fueled anxiety among federal workers already dealing with job insecurity due to recent budget cuts and workforce reductions under Musk’s leadership.
Democratic lawmakers criticized Musk’s mandate, arguing that it lacked legal authority and infringed on employee rights. Senator Chris Van Hollen called the action illegal, while Representative Mike Lawler questioned the legality of dismissing employees based on non-compliance. Even some Republicans voiced concerns, with Senator John Curtis urging Musk to show compassion, emphasizing that government workers are real people with livelihoods at stake.
Federal employee unions condemned the directive as “cruel and disrespectful.” Everett Kelley, President of the American Federation of Government Employees, accused Musk and the Trump administration of undermining federal workers’ dignity and pledged to fight any unlawful terminations.
Elon Musk defended his approach as a straightforward measure of accountability, calling it a “basic pulse check” on employee productivity. He argued that a portion of the federal workforce was unproductive and suggested that some government positions were fraudulent, although he did not provide evidence for this claim.
President Trump praised Musk’s efforts to downsize the federal government, encouraging him to take an even more aggressive stance. At the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Trump mocked federal employees affected by the directive, portraying them as inefficient and unproductive.
While some agencies resisted Musk’s order, others complied. Ed Martin, interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, instructed his team to respond to the OPM email and expressed support for Musk’s efforts. However, conflicting instructions from different federal offices created uncertainty and stress among employees.
Amid mounting criticism, Musk doubled down on his stance, arguing that his request was a minimal expectation for government employees. Meanwhile, federal agencies remain divided, with some adhering to Musk’s directive and others prioritizing internal protocols.
The controversy surrounding Musk’s mandate highlights tensions within the federal government as it faces restructuring under Trump’s administration. As federal employees navigate inconsistent guidance and legal uncertainties, the dispute raises questions about the balance between government accountability and employee rights.
This image is the property of The New Dispatch LLC and is not licenseable for external use without explicit written permission.
