White House
Email
starts power clash between Musk and agency leaders — even the Trump loyalists
The response
to Elon Musk’s “What did you do last week?” threat is the first sign that even
staunch White House allies are beginning to flex their political muscle against
him.
By Irie
Sentner
02/23/2025
05:14 PM EST
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/23/musk-guidance-conflict-agency-leaders-00205640
Elon Musk’s
weekend threat to federal workers triggered panic and confusion Sunday as
administration officials rushed to issue sometimes conflicting guidance,
setting in motion a power struggle between Musk and agency heads appointed by
President Donald Trump to lead the federal government.
The guidance
varied by agency, with some leaders telling their employees to wait before
complying with Musk’s demand that they justify their jobs in writing and others
either staying silent or offering vague advice on how to handle the Musk
missive.
It’s the
latest episode of Musk’s “move fast and break things” philosophy clashing with
the layers of rules and laws that fortify the bureaucracy he hopes to hobble.
And it’s the first sign that even staunch Trump loyalists are beginning to flex
their political muscle against Musk, an unelected “special government
employee,” whose power stems primarily from his proximity to the president.
“Elon Musk
has no authority. He’s not in the chain of command of these employees, so
getting a direct order to do something or lose your job in some capacity when
he had no authority to do that is something these agency heads are basically
wising up to,” said Mark Maxin, an attorney with nearly four decades of
experience in federal employment law, who served as counsel for labor relations
at the Department of Labor under Democratic and Republican administrations.
Musk said
Saturday on X that all federal employees would receive an email asking them
what they did the week before, and failure to respond would be “taken as a
resignation.” Hours later, employees across the government got an email
directing them to provide about five bullet points detailing what they
accomplished in the past week, with a deadline of 11:59 p.m. Eastern on Monday.
Cue the
confusion. As millions of federal workers wondered when and how to respond —
and if their jobs, already under attack, hung in the balance — leadership at
some agencies urged employees not to immediately comply.
“No employee
is obligated to report their activities outside of their Department chain of
command,” read an email sent to State Department employees, obtained by
POLITICO. Leaders at agencies from the National Institutes of Health to the
Justice Department instructed workers not to respond until they receive further
guidance, according to people familiar with the matter.
Even Kash
Patel, the FBI director and fierce Trump loyalist, instructed agency staff to
“please pause any responses,” in an email obtained by POLITICO. Similar
language appears in guidance sent Sunday afternoon to Pentagon employees and
obtained by POLITICO.
A DOGE
spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The email,
sent with the subject line “What did you do last week?” from an Office of
Personnel Management human resources address, instructed employees not to share
classified information. But Maxin, the labor lawyer, cautioned that respondents
could still break the law if they shared information that was not classified,
but privacy protected, such as personal identifying information about other
employees.
Maxin added
that Musk’s email violates federal sector employment law in several ways,
including that employees are protected from being coerced to give out
information. A threat of dismissal would likely fit the definition of coercion.
Legal
experts continue to say Musk lacks the authority to fire anyone in the federal
government, where workers are entitled to civil service protections, unlike at
his private sector companies, where the world’s richest person has culled his
own workforce.
“I don’t
believe it would be legal, and I don’t think he really understands right now
how he will even do what he’s threatened to do,” said Michael Fallings, an
attorney specializing in federal employment law.
Speaking
Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah) said, “I don’t
think this is a request that is that difficult,” but also used the situation to
urge Musk to shift his tone.
“We don’t
need to be so cold and hard,” Curtis said, “and let’s put a little compassion
and, quite frankly, dignity, in this as well.”
Musk’s
social media post announcing the email came hours after Trump publicly pushed
for the DOGE chief to “get more aggressive.”
And the move
appears to have satisfied the president. On Sunday, Trump and Musk both posted
a SpongeBob meme on social media joking that bureaucrats’ bullet points would
include “cried about Trump, cried about Elon, made it into the office once,
read some emails [and] cried about Trump and Elon some more.”
Democrats
and labor advocates slammed the directive as cruel and illegal. The American
Federation of Government Employees, the union that represents workers across
the federal government, on Sunday sent a letter to OPM calling the email
“nothing more than an irresponsible and sophomoric attempt to create confusion
and bully the hard-working federal employees that serve our country” and
requesting that the agency “rescind the email and apologize to all federal
employees.”
“Elon Musk
is traumatizing hardworking federal employees, their children and families,”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a statement. “He has no legal
authority to make his latest demands.”
And
government workers, granted anonymity to speak candidly, told POLITICO the
email — and the idea that their employment could be judged based on a handful
of bullet points — was offensive. “This data call is such an oversimplification
of our work; it’s insulting,” said one FDA official.
“If I answer
this little pop quiz honestly, most of my listed activities would be cleaning
up the mess caused by DOGE and the administration,” said a career staffer at
the Energy Department.
Anita Kumar,
Daniel Payne, Hannah Northey, Paul McLeary, Josh Gerstein and Daniel Lippman
contributed to this report.


Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário