Does the Response to OPM’s Latest Email Evidence a Turf War?

Sent on a Saturday, the email provided employees with less than three days to respond. The email did not repeat Musk’s threat that a non-response would be treated as a resignation. Yet it also did not explain how OPM intended to use this information. Musk later said that the email was meant to “check to see if the employee had a pulse.”

From Saturday through Monday, President Trump and Musk taunted federal employees about the email. On Truth Social, Trump posted a meme of SpongeBob SquarePants scratching his head while staring at a notepad titled “Got Done Last Week.” On the notepad was a list of items including “Cried about Trump,” “Cried about Elon,” “Made it into the office for once,” “Read some emails,” and “Cried about Trump and Elon some more.” On X, Musk said, “The email request was utterly trivial, as standards for passing the test was to type some words and press send! ... Have you ever witnessed such INCOMPETENCE and CONTEMPT for how YOUR TAXES are being spent?” 

The email triggered significant confusion within agencies. Neither the White House nor Musk provided agency leaders with advance warning that OPM would send this email. Employees received conflicting information about whether they needed to respond. Some agencies instructed employees to pause their response pending further guidance, while others explicitly instructed employees to reply as soon as possible. Within the same agency or bureau, local offices received different directives. For example, local medical centers within the Department of Veteran Affairs reached different conclusions about how to respond.

The whiplash experienced by employees in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is illustrative. On Sunday morning, HHS sent an email to all employees saying, “This is a legitimate email. Please read and respond per the instructions by Monday, February 24, 11:59pm EST.” The National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases—a component of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—instructed employees to follow HHS’s directive. By contrast, the National Institutes of Health acknowledged the directive from HHS but instructed employees to hold their replies until they had further guidance. By Sunday evening, HHS had told all employees to pause any response. At 4:59 p.m. on Monday, HHS sent an email stating that compliance was voluntary and that “there is no impact to your employment with the agency if you choose not to respond.” 

Conflicting communications from OPM only exacerbated confusion. OPM sent the email via a new government-wide email system. At the time of OPM’s first email, the guidance for the email system stated, “The Employee Response Data is explicitly voluntary. The individual federal government employees can opt out simply by not responding to the email.” Nothing in OPM’s initial email, however, suggested that replying was voluntary. Moreover, Musk had suggested that agencies would treat a non-response as a resignation. A week after OPM’s first email, it removed the language suggesting that a response was voluntary and added a statement that “the consequences for failure to provide the requested information will vary depending on the particular email at issue.” 

OPM eventually issued additional guidance suggesting that employees should reply unless the agency exempted the employee. The guidance further instructed agencies to “consider any appropriate actions regarding employees who fail to respond to activity/accomplishment requests.” Some agencies used the discretion afforded by OPM to make compliance with the email voluntary. 

Variation in Instructions

One of the most curious aspects of this episode is the variation in whether and how agencies instructed their employees to reply to OPM’s email. The incident provides new insights into the political dynamics emerging within the Trump administration.

To explore these dynamics, I constructed a dataset of instructions related to OPM’s first email. I coded the initial response from each agency as instructing its employees to reply (“Reply”), to refrain from replying (“No Reply”), or that any response was voluntary (“Voluntary”). Whenever possible, I also coded whether the agency subsequently notified its employees that responses were voluntary.

Several notes on the data: First, I collected data only for agency instructions related to OPM’s Feb. 22 email. The data below does not reflect responses to the Feb. 28 email. Second, I coded an instruction as “No Reply” only if the agency actively instructed employees to refrain from replying. Third, I coded the first agency-wide instructions sent by the headquarters for each Cabinet department. This avoids the problem that bureaus within Cabinet departments often sent conflicting messages to employees. One minor exception is HHS. Although HHS initially instructed employees to reply, it quickly instructed employees to pause pending further guidance. I treated HHS’s initial email as a pause and coded its final instruction as “Voluntary.” Fourth, I may have failed to identify some of the agencies that subsequently informed their employees that a response was voluntary. Not every agency sent such an email. Some agencies reaffirmed the need for employees to respond after OPM sent its memo. Nevertheless, the agency’s initial response still tells us something about how agency leaders reacted to OPM’s email.

The table below categorizes the instructions sent by 31 agencies. An asterisk indicates that the agency later informed employees that a response was voluntary. Whenever possible, I have provided a link to a public source that discusses the agency’s instructions. Data from other agencies comes from anonymous sources who shared their agency’s emails with me via Signal. For almost every agency, multiple employees provided me with emails.

Most agencies (64.5 percent) instructed their employees to reply to the message. If we exclude the agencies that ultimately informed their employees that a response was voluntary, almost half (48.4 percent) still mandated a response. Yet more than a third (38.7 percent) did not mandate a response, and over a quarter (25.8 percent) actively instructed their employees not to respond to the email. Four patterns deserve a brief discussion. 

National Security Agencies

Agencies with missions related to national security were the most likely to instruct employees to refrain from replying. Many of the instructions from agency leaders reaffirmed their right to manage their agency’s personnel. FBI Director Kash Patel told employees, “The FBI, through the Office of the Director, is in charge of all of our review processes, and will conduct reviews in accordance with the FBI procedures.” The State Department’s acting undersecretary for management, Tibor Nagy, put it more pointedly: “No employee is obligated to report their activities outside of their Department chain of command.” The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sent similarly worded messages.

OPM’s email raised valid concerns that employees may accidentally disclose information relevant to national security. Lawsuits have raised concerns that OPM’s email server lacks sufficient security to handle private information shared by federal employees—let alone information about the operations of national security agencies. Although the email stated that employees should not send “classified information,” many agencies also control the dissemination of unclassified information. HHS informed employees that responses were voluntary, but it instructed employees who chose to respond to assume that their email would be read by “malign foreign actors.” Many other agencies likely reached a similar conclusion.

Notably, not all national security agencies instructed their employees to refrain from responding. Before DHS sent an agency-wide email, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency urged employees to respond. Other agencies, such as the Secret Service, instructed employees to provide generic responses, such as “This week I accomplished: 100% of the tasks and duties required of me by my position description.” DHS’s agency-wide email ultimately supplanted the instructions from these bureaus.

Loyalty

Some agency leaders used the email as an opportunity to show their loyalty to the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE’s) agenda. Both the head of the Small Business Administration, Kelly Loeffler, and Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy posted their own lists of five accomplishments on social media. Some of the emails instructing agencies to reply used language mirroring Trump’s priorities. The Department of the Treasury’s email said, “The OPM message reflets an effort to increase accountability by the federal workforce, just as there is in the private sector.” The Office of Management and Budget provided the same message. 

The show of loyalty raises questions about whether agencies with Trump-appointed heads were more likely than those with acting officials to instruct their employees to reply. Using data from the Partnership for Public Service and the Washington Post, I examined which agencies had a Senate-confirmed appointee at the time of OPM’s first email. Additionally, in five agencies—the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—the president may select the chair of the agency. I include these agencies as having a Trump-appointed head. 

Only one agency that instructed its employees to refrain from replying (12.5 percent of the category)—NASA—lacked a Trump-appointed head. All four agencies that first instructed their employees that a reply was voluntary had a Trump-appointed head. Seven of the agencies that instructed their employees to reply (36.8 percent of the category) lacked a Trump-appointed head. Although this number is higher than the other two categories, the discrepancy may relate more to the small number of observations in each box. Overall, there is not a meaningful pattern to suggest that Trump-appointed heads were more or less likely to order employees to reply to the email.

Fear

Some agencies may have instructed their employees to respond out of fear of reprisal. Agency leaders may have believed that the email would be used to determine whether cuts should be made within the agency. Indeed, rumors circulated that Musk would feed the emails into an AI model to determine which positions to cut. In their instructions, many agency leaders emphasized that the email was an opportunity for the agency to demonstrate its importance to the public.

Agencies at the forefront of Trump’s attacks often sent detailed instructions for how to write a strong response. For example, Trump has proposed dismantling the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The agency provided employees with a formula for constructing strong statements. It recommended that employees “use an action verb such as planned, initiated, coordinated, etc. when drafting [their] accomplishment.” It even went so far as to provide employees with a list of action verbs.

Independent Agencies

Independent agencies instructed their employees to respond at relatively high rates. Of the 13 independent administrations, commissions, and corporations on the list, 10 (76.9 percent) instructed their employees to reply to the email. 

In some independent agencies, the instruction may again reflect loyalty on the part of agency leadership. This is consistent with recent research demonstrating that presidents exercise greater authority over these agencies than often theorized, especially through the appointment of the chair. For example, the Federal Communications Commission told employees, “Reflecting on what you have accomplished in the past week is a standard practice and can drive greater efficiency, productivity, and accountability.” 

Alternatively, the response from independent agencies may also reflect fear about the fate of these agencies. In a recent executive order, Trump sought to expand his control over independent agencies and their policymaking activities. Some independent agencies instructed employees to comply with the order but placed significant restrictions on responses. For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission prepared a list of boilerplate accomplishments and instructed employees to select accomplishments from the list.

Who Is in Charge?

The mixed reaction from federal agencies raises questions about the political dynamics emerging in the Trump administration. Some media have portrayed the incident as illustrating growing frustration with Musk’s intrusions into agency management. Maybe. At least some agency officials appear frustrated. Yet most agencies still instructed their employees to reply—at least among the agencies for which data was available. The emerging dynamics exhibit greater nuance than often described. Political science sheds some light on why these dynamics may be emerging.

Agency leaders value autonomy. In his seminal book, “Bureaucracy,” James Q. Wilson argues, “The concern for autonomy also leads government agencies to resist being regulated by other agencies.” By law, each agency evaluates the performance of its employees—not OPM. Federal employees follow a strict chain of command and typically report to a single supervisor within the agency. OPM’s email interfered with the right of agency leaders to supervise and manage the performance of their employees. Agencies that resisted the OPM email, such as the State Department, often referenced the chain of command and their authority over agency personnel.

The preservation and exercise of autonomy often depends on the political capital possessed by the agency. Relative to domestic policy agencies, national security agencies are typically more insulated from political threats. The political capital possessed by these agencies was demonstrated when Trump defended their noncompliance. In the Oval Office, Trump told reporters, “They don’t mean that in any way combatively with Elon. They’re just saying there are some people that you don’t want to really have them tell you what they’re working on last week.” Moreover, Trump’s executive orders have exempted many of these agencies from the White House’s workforce cuts. Trump’s response and orders illustrate the political capital possessed by these national security agencies.

The exercise of this autonomy remained on display following OPM’s second email. On Feb. 28, OPM sent another email asking employees to once again report five accomplishments from the previous week. Again, the State Department instructed employees not to respond. DHS instructed employees to respond to a separate DHS email that would “remain internal to DHS,” citing its “national security responsibilities.” In ordering civilian employees to respond, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told employees that the Pentagon had reviewed its procedures and spoken with OPM about the fact that the Defense Department works on topics of national security. Like DHS, the Defense Department’s email came from within the agency. In a memo, Secretary Hegseth specified that the responses would be consolidated internally. In a separate memo, the Defense Department reiterated that it “is responsible for reviewing the performance of its personnel, and it will conduct any review in accordance with its own procedures” (emphasis added). 

This does not mean agency leaders who resisted the OPM email are disloyal to Trump. Presidents often place a premium on loyalty when selecting political appointees, preferring appointees perceived as capable of implementing the president’s policy priorities. Despite their exemption, many of the national security agencies have promised to cut their workforces. For example,  Hegseth has promised to make “aggressive” cuts to the Defense Department’s workforce “up and down the chain.” Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told Congress she would reduce the size of her office. The response of these agencies to the OPM email does suggest, however, that they feel more comfortable resisting intrusions from Musk. While some of these agencies ordered employees to comply with the second email, they did so in a way that removed Musk from a position of control. 

Other agency leaders, however, may have complied with OPM’s email out of either fear or loyalty. Some of these leaders, such as the Small Business Administration’s Loeffler, have explicitly prioritized working with Musk and DOGE. Others, however, may lack sufficient credibility within the Trump administration to meaningfully oppose Musk. They perceive compliance as a means of protecting their agency from future cuts.

Many people have wondered whether Musk will overstay his welcome within the Trump administration. The responses to the OPM emails may preview where rifts are likely to emerge. Agency leaders within the national security agencies are more likely to resist Musk’s future intrusions. I would not be surprised if the White House ultimately curbs Musk’s jurisdiction to keep the peace. But Trump obviously values the work Musk is doing. He is unlikely to tolerate resistance from agencies that he intends to abolish.