A significant rift appeared between certain appointees of President Donald Trump and Elon Musk over an email sent to federal workers demanding that they report their weekly accomplishments or face potential termination. Musk, who has been tasked with reforming the federal government, implemented the directive as part of a broader effort to shake up the bureaucracy, but it quickly became a point of contention within the federal workforce. On Sunday, several key agencies, including the Pentagon, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Department of Energy, issued immediate instructions to their staff not to respond to the email sent by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on Saturday, which had the subject line: “What did you do last week?”
This email from OPM, which asked federal employees to send a list of five accomplishments from the past week, created widespread confusion across government departments. Agency heads, many of whom were appointed by Trump himself, began sending conflicting messages to employees. Some managers initially told their staff to comply with the request, while others, including those at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), reversed course hours later. Many agency heads instructed their employees to pause their responses until Monday, while others offered more explicit guidance on how to proceed.
At the FBI, newly sworn-in director Kash Patel instructed staff not to respond, emphasizing that any necessary reviews would be conducted according to the agency’s own procedures. Similarly, the Department of Defense (DoD) made it clear that performance reviews were the responsibility of the department and its procedures, and that no responses to the OPM email were necessary for the time being. The confusion was so overwhelming that several Defense Department officials admitted it was one of the most disruptive moments they had seen in decades.
Other agencies, like DHS and the State Department, took similar steps, instructing employees not to respond to the OPM email and ensuring that responses would be coordinated from the top levels of their respective departments. DHS staff, for example, received instructions to wait for further guidance from the department’s leadership, while the State Department told its employees that they were not required to report their activities outside the department’s chain of command.
The email fallout added another layer of uncertainty and tension to a federal workforce already on edge. Musk, undeterred by the pushback, took to X (formerly Twitter) to criticize the resistance, stating, “EXTREMELY troubling that some parts of government think this is TOO MUCH!! What is wrong with them??” This marked a stark contrast to the guidance being issued by agency heads who were now publicly distancing themselves from Musk’s directive.
The situation also prompted criticism from some Republicans, including Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who called the weekend email “absurd” and suggested that if Musk truly wanted to understand the work of federal employees, he should take the time to learn about the roles and responsibilities of each department. Senator John Curtis of Utah also expressed concerns, urging Musk to take a more compassionate approach, emphasizing that cutting government positions did not require cruelty.
Despite the growing opposition, Musk appeared to double down on his position, even as Trump supported his efforts. The former president posted a meme on social media mocking the situation, which only intensified the confusion among federal workers. For many in the federal workforce, this incident highlighted the growing influence Musk has over the federal government’s inner workings, with some questioning how far his power should extend in shaping the future of these institutions.
While many of Trump’s appointees have largely backed Musk’s efforts to reform the federal bureaucracy, this episode has ignited a debate over how much authority Musk should wield over federal agencies, many of which have long-established systems and procedures. Some officials, especially those in national security and safety departments, expressed concern that Musk’s reforms were overstepping the bounds of normal government operations. As more senior officials from different departments joined in the pushback, it became clear that Musk’s top-down approach was facing significant opposition, even from within his own political base.
This incident also illustrated the complex dynamics between Musk and Trump’s appointees, revealing an uncomfortable tension between Musk’s aggressive approach to government reform and the more traditional bureaucratic processes that many federal agencies rely on. Despite the mounting resistance, Musk seems resolute in his determination to continue pushing for significant changes within the federal government, with the support of Trump and his loyalists, leaving the future of these reforms uncertain.
3 thoughts on “Tension Between Trump Appointees and Elon Musk Over Federal Workers”