UJ
—
In a recent initiative by President Donald Trump and Elon Musk aimed at the federal workforce, employees received emails on Saturday afternoon requesting details about their work from the previous week, with Musk stating that “not responding will be deemed as a resignation.”
However, several national security agencies, including the FBI, along with various federal departments, cautioned their staff against immediately replying to these emails, indicating that the wider executive branch was not aware of nor ready for this request.
The email, sent from a new HR address within the Office of Personnel Management, lacked a signature, with the subject line stating: “What did you accomplish last week?”
“Kindly respond to this email with approximately 5 bullet points outlining your achievements from last week and cc your manager. Do not include any classified information, links, or attachments,” the message further instructed.
UJ has reviewed several versions of these emails sent to various federal employees, many marked with high importance or red exclamation points.
This email initiative followed a social media post from Musk, threatening the employment of those who failed to comply.
“In alignment with President @realDonaldTrump’s commands, all federal employees will soon receive an email requesting information on what they accomplished last week,” Musk tweeted on Saturday, shortly after Trump urged him to be more “assertive.”
Nonetheless, the email did not explicitly state that failing to respond would equate to resignation; it merely noted a deadline for submissions set for Monday at 11:59 p.m. ET.
This email sent ripples of concern across a federal workforce already dealing with a series of directives from the Trump administration, which included the recent dismissal of thousands of probationary employees, a deferred resignation offer viewed with skepticism, and a mandate to return to in-person work full time, among others.
Following Musk’s message and the OPM email, a union chapter president reported receiving a stream of texts from worried members.
“I honestly have no idea what that email is supposed to mean,” the union leader remarked to UJ, adding that members are being advised to “just wait for further instructions.”
Musk lacks the authority to compel federal employees to resign, and any attempt to do so would amount to involuntary termination, explained Michael Fallings, a federal employment law expert and managing partner at Tully Rinckey. Employees affected could lodge a complaint against the action.
According to Fallings, “Musk’s statement holds no legal weight,” emphasizing that expecting employees to report on last week’s work is an “unreasonable and unnecessary request,” particularly when demanded over the weekend with an arbitrary deadline.
It is recommended that employees confer with their managers and, if relevant, their union officials before responding to the email, Fallings asserted.
Some agencies have also instructed personnel to withhold responses to the email—especially in those agencies where duties may involve sensitive information.
FBI Director Kash Patel advised bureau employees on Saturday not to respond to the OPM email immediately.
In a communication to bureau employees obtained by UJ, Patel stated, “The FBI, through the Office of the Director, is responsible for all review processes and will adhere to FBI protocols. If and when further information is needed, we will coordinate responses. For now, please refrain from replying.”
Patel’s communication followed similar sentiments expressed by senior leaders at the FBI’s NY field office and other departments urging their employees against responding.
Employees of the National Security Agency received similar warnings on Saturday, advising them to hold off on responses until receiving additional directions from the Department of Defense, a source indicated.
In addition, Ed Martin, the interim US attorney for the District of Columbia, informed employees to keep their responses general if necessary, assuring them of protection: “If anyone creates issues, I will support you,” Martin stated.
Conversely, the head of the US Secret Service instructed staff to comply with the OPM email but noted that resources are available for employees during “uncertain times.”
In a message to the Secret Service workforce obtained by UJ, Director Sean Curran confirmed the legitimacy of the email employees received from OPM, stating it “requires your response.” Curran also noted that any employee who did not receive the email from the federal government’s chief human resources agency should proactively contact OPM to justify their roles.
“I recognize that this request may raise concerns,” Curran added. “We also provide resources for all Secret Service employees, including the Employee Assistance Program, Peer Support Program, and Chaplain Program that can assist during uncertain periods.”
The leader of a prominent union representing federal employees sharply criticized Musk’s ultimatum, stating to UJ that it exemplifies the Trump administration’s “complete disregard for federal employees and the essential services they deliver to the American public.”
“It is disrespectful and inhumane toward the hundreds of thousands of veterans who are now serving in the civil service to be compelled to justify their job responsibilities to this disconnected, privileged billionaire who has never dedicated a moment to genuine public service,” said Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, representing over 800,000 federal workers.
Kelley further stated that his union intends to pursue legal action to “contest any unlawful terminations of our members and federal employees.”
Doreen Greenwald, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, labeled the OPM email as “entirely un-American.”
“The ‘What Did You Do Last Week?’ email sent to federal employees nationwide should be condemned as distinctly un-American,” Greenwald remarked in a statement. “NTEU’s members are adept civil servants who will not waver against such overt attempts to undermine a critical resource for the American people.”
A federal worker conveyed to UJ that they find the demand “offensive” and “truly astonishing,” particularly as their work activities are already monitored.
“This is a cold, calculated tactic to eliminate employees they haven’t been able to dismiss thus far,” the worker stated referring to Musk’s post implying that a lack of response would be treated as a resignation.
Another employee expressed feeling the pressure to respond.
“Personally, I am worried that if I don’t reply by the deadline due to Elon’s comments indicating that a lack of response would be treated as a resignation,” shared the worker, who also mentioned that friends in another agency are divided on whether to respond with achievements or with affirmations of their oath to the Constitution.
Trump has enlisted Musk to revamp the federal government through his Department of Government Efficiency. However, the legality of this latest action remains uncertain.
An OPM representative responded to inquiries, stating that the initiative aims to ensure “an efficient and accountable federal workforce.” Agencies will determine any subsequent actions, the spokesperson noted.
Shortly after Musk’s post on Saturday, Trump referred to him as a “patriot” and commended his efforts during speeches at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
Musk’s remarks on Saturday came following an earlier statement from Trump encouraging the billionaire to adopt a more forceful approach.
“ELON IS DOING A GREAT JOB, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HIM GET MORE AGGRESSIVE. REMEMBER, WE HAVE A COUNTRY TO SAVE, BUT ULTIMATELY, TO MAKE GREATER THAN EVER BEFORE. MAGA!” read Trump’s post. Musk responded, “Will do, Mr. President!” in his own message.
These emails emerge as Musk and Trump seek to transform the federal workforce—potentially reducing its scale, substituting career employees with political appointees, eliminating certain civil service protections, and discontinuing diversity initiatives, among other changes.
This story has been updated with new reporting.
Reporting contributed by UJ’s Betsy Klein, Jamie Gangel, and Sean Lyngass.
