The U.S. federal workforce received an unexpected directive this week: disregard an email from Elon Musk demanding job justifications. The guidance came from the agency overseeing federal employees, dismissing the billionaire’s attempt to impose a performance check on government staff.
Musk’s Email Sparks Outrage
Federal employees were caught off guard over the weekend when Musk, the CEO of Tesla, SpaceX, and owner of X (formerly Twitter), sent an email titled “What did you do last week?” The message instructed them to summarize their work accomplishments by Monday evening or risk termination.
The email immediately triggered backlash. Critics accused Musk of overstepping his authority and attempting to micromanage government operations. For many, it was another example of his brash leadership style, which has often led to high-profile clashes in both the private and public sectors.
Government Response: Ignore It
By Monday, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the agency responsible for overseeing federal workers, stepped in. It informed employees that Musk’s directive held no legal standing and could be ignored.
A senior official, speaking on condition of anonymity, clarified that no federal employee’s job was in jeopardy due to Musk’s email. “Federal employees are accountable to their agencies and the American people, not private individuals,” the official said.
Musk’s Justification and Public Reaction
Musk defended his email, calling it a “trivial” request. Posting on X, he criticized federal workers who failed to respond, suggesting their reluctance to comply was proof of incompetence.
“The email request was utterly trivial, as the standard for passing the test was to type some words and press send! Yet so many failed even that inane test, urged on in some cases by their managers,” Musk wrote. “Have you ever witnessed such INCOMPETENCE and CONTEMPT for how YOUR TAXES are being spent? Makes old Twitter look good. Didn’t think that was possible.”
The post reignited debates about government efficiency and Musk’s increasingly vocal stance on political and bureaucratic matters.
Experts Weigh In
Legal and labor experts quickly pointed out the flaws in Musk’s approach. While his companies are known for demanding accountability, imposing similar expectations on federal workers without authority was seen as both inappropriate and unrealistic.
- Paul Light, a professor of public service at NYU, noted: “Federal agencies already have oversight and performance measures in place. Musk’s email was performative, not procedural.”
- Beth Simone Noveck, a governance expert, added: “Private-sector management techniques don’t always translate well to public administration.”
Meanwhile, many government employees took to social media to express their frustration, some posting tongue-in-cheek responses detailing their work—often in excessive, bureaucratic jargon—to mock Musk’s demand.
A Pattern of Controversy
Musk’s latest move fits into a broader pattern of his confrontations with governments and regulatory bodies. He has frequently clashed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and various global regulators over his business practices and outspoken public statements.
His hands-on approach to leadership has drawn both praise and criticism. At Tesla and SpaceX, he has demanded long hours and intense commitment, leading to innovation but also allegations of a toxic work culture. Critics argue that his success in the private sector does not give him authority to dictate terms to public employees.
What’s Next?
For now, the Biden administration has not officially commented on the email controversy, though White House insiders suggest the situation is being monitored. Federal agencies have reaffirmed their commitment to internal accountability measures but see no need to respond to external pressure from Musk or any other private individual.
Whether Musk will continue to push for government reforms or shift his focus elsewhere remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: his influence on public discourse—and his ability to stir controversy—remains as strong as ever.
