Federal Employees Must Respond to Musk's New Accomplishment Request Amid Layoff Threat
Defense Department mandates employee responses to Elon Musk's email demanding weekly accomplishments as part of federal downsizing initiatives.
Overview
Federal employees are now required to respond by next week to Elon Musk’s controversial email requesting a five-point summary of accomplishments. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced all civilian employees must reply by March 3, amid a reversal of previous agency guidance. Musk suggested at a Cabinet meeting that noncompliance may indicate that some workers do not exist, prompting concern from lawmakers and employee groups. The move follows an earlier request from the Office of Personnel Management, which many agencies initially opposed. Layoffs are expected across various departments, including the Education Department, which has offered buyouts.
Content generated by AI—learn more or report issue.
Read both sides in 5 minutes each day
Analysis
- Federal employees are receiving a second email requiring them to report their recent accomplishments, a tactic supported by President Trump and Elon Musk to evaluate the government workforce.
- The first email had mixed responses from federal employees, with less than half replying, and many agencies indicated that participation was optional despite initial threats of job loss.
- The initiative aims to downsize federal agencies, managing the workforce amid claims that some employees may not actually exist or be contributing.
Articles (6)
FAQ
The Office of Personnel Management initially stated that compliance is voluntary, but some agencies, like the Defense Department, have mandated responses from their employees[1].
Elon Musk suggested that non-response could indicate an employee does not exist, and President Trump mentioned that non-responders might be 'semi-fired' or 'fired'[1].
The Education Department is mentioned as offering buyouts, indicating it is among those affected by layoffs[1].
Yes, unions and advocacy groups have filed a lawsuit to stop OPM from requiring federal workers to report their accomplishments, arguing that OPM did not follow a formal rulemaking process[1].
History
- 5M3 articles
