Elon Musk defends DOGE diktat to federal employees, says Trump encouraged him to be 'more aggressive'

Elon Musk

Elon Musk defended his federal worker email mandate, stating that President Trump encouraged him to be "more aggressive," amid legal challenges and backlash from agencies resisting DOGE's authority.

Elon Musk has defended his controversial email mandate for federal employees, saying that US President Donald Trump personally encouraged him to be "more aggressive" in his efforts to streamline the federal government.

In a post on Truth Social and a follow-up phone call, Musk said Trump approved the directive, which required federal workers to respond to an email outlining their tasks or risk being considered for termination. The move, implemented by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has sparked significant backlash and legal challenges.

Trump: Non-responding workers at risk of termination

Trump reinforced Musk's mandate by stating that approximately 1 million federal workers who failed to respond to the email are now at risk of losing their jobs. His remarks signal a major shift in federal workforce policies, with the administration prioritizing aggressive oversight and efficiency measures. Critics warn that such mass firings could create instability in essential government functions.

Musk: Trump approved the email mandate

Musk, who has been leading DOGE at Trump's request, stated that he sought the president's approval before issuing the directive. "The President is Commander-in-Chief and I do what the President asks," Musk wrote, defending the policy. He added that the email mandate was not intended to be "capricious or unfair" but rather a tool to ensure accountability within the federal workforce.

According to Musk, employees were not required to disclose sensitive information in their responses. "The e-mail could simply be 'What I'm working on is classified,' that would be sufficient," he explained. The primary goal, he said, was to retain essential personnel and remove inefficiencies within the government.

Despite Musk's insistence that the policy is common sense, it has been met with resistance from agency heads, legal experts, and labour unions, who argue that it creates unnecessary confusion and fear among government employees.

Backlash and legal scrutiny

The email directive has led to legal disputes, with critics arguing that it violates employment protections and due process. The Justice Department has distanced itself from DOGE's mandate, with lawyers arguing in court that Musk lacks the authority to directly control federal employees. Some federal judges have also expressed scepticism about the legitimacy of DOGE's actions, particularly as the agency's leadership structure remains unclear.

Additionally, several federal agencies have pushed back against the order. Some, including the FBI and the State Department, have refused to comply, citing concerns over national security and classified information. Other agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services, explicitly told their employees to ignore the email request.

The policy has also led to logistical chaos, with reports of TSA officers being pulled from security checkpoints to fill out responses, causing delays at airports. Union representatives have called the mandate a form of intimidation, warning that it could be used to justify mass firings without due process.

Musk's vision for government efficiency

Musk has remained firm on his mission to overhaul the federal bureaucracy, frequently posting on social media about his cost-cutting efforts. Under his leadership, DOGE has claimed to have saved billions of dollars, though recent reports have called those figures into question. The department's "wall of receipts," which was meant to showcase savings, was quietly altered after errors in reported figures were exposed.

Despite the controversy, Musk insisted that his approach aligns with Trump's vision for a leaner government. "We want to keep everyone who is essential and doing their job well," he stated, emphasizing that the goal is efficiency, not indiscriminate job cuts.