WASHINGTON — Federal agencies plunged into chaos on Monday as hundreds of thousands of employees scrambled to respond to an unexpected demand from Elon Musk, head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), to justify their jobs—or risk termination.
The sweeping order, issued under President Donald Trump’s cost-cutting directive, has sparked resistance from major U.S. agencies and ignited bipartisan outrage. Musk’s demand? Federal employees had 48 hours to list five accomplishments from the previous week—or face potential firing.
Amazon’s Top 5 Must-Read Books: Don’t Miss These Gems
A Nationwide Federal Showdown
Several key agencies, including the FBI, State Department, Department of Homeland Security, and the Pentagon, pushed back against the directive, instructing employees not to comply.
- FBI Director Kash Patel ordered agents to ignore Musk’s demand until proper review protocols were followed.
- The Pentagon advised staff to “pause” responses, citing procedural concerns.
- Homeland Security and the State Department assured employees that leadership would handle official replies on their behalf.
Meanwhile, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) sent conflicting messages. Acting General Counsel Sean Keveney initially told employees not to comply, only for agency leadership to later issue revised guidance encouraging compliance—before halting again by Sunday evening.
“I was personally insulted by this demand after logging over 70 hours last week,” Keveney stated in an internal memo, noting legal concerns over privacy and security.
Musk’s Harsh Deadline and Trump’s Endorsement
Musk’s email, sent to hundreds of thousands of federal workers, gave employees until 11:59 p.m. EST Monday to submit their reports. In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Musk doubled down, warning that non-responders would lose their jobs.
President Trump backed Musk’s aggressive approach, posting a meme mocking federal workers who “cried about Trump and Elon,” and encouraging even harsher cost-cutting measures.
“This is a basic pulse check,” Musk claimed online, alleging without evidence that government payrolls were funding “ghost employees” and “fraudulent accounts.”
Bipartisan Criticism and Union Pushback
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have denounced Musk’s order as potentially illegal.
- Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah), whose state employs 33,000 federal workers, urged Musk to act with compassion:“These are real people with real lives and mortgages. Cost-cutting doesn’t need cruelty.”
- Democratic leaders raised concerns over privacy breaches and potential violations of labor laws.
Federal employee unions are now preparing to file lawsuits challenging the order, arguing that the abrupt mandate violates both constitutional rights and existing federal employment protections.
Conflicting Agency Guidance Creates Chaos
While some departments flatly rejected Musk’s demand, others issued vague or contradictory instructions:
- The U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Ed Martin, advised employees to use their discretion—either comply or not—while assuring them of his support.
- The State Department made it clear that employees should not bypass traditional reporting channels.
- The Pentagon and Homeland Security took a more cautious approach, instructing employees to wait for further guidance.
Mass Exits and Growing Workforce Uncertainty
Since the start of Trump’s second term, thousands of federal employees have already been dismissed or resigned under Musk’s cost-cutting measures. Many more are expected to leave this week, including large swaths of Pentagon civilian workers and most staff at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
Although Musk claims his actions are designed to weed out inefficiency and fraud, critics argue the approach is reckless and destabilizing.
“We’re watching decades of institutional knowledge walk out the door,” one agency insider remarked. “The long-term impact on national security and public services could be devastating.”
What’s Next?
With lawsuits looming and political pressure mounting, Musk’s controversial oversight of the federal workforce faces an uncertain future. As agencies struggle to navigate conflicting directives, the ultimate question remains: Can government reform happen without dismantling the very system it aims to improve?
