By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a controversial initial request for weekly work summaries from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), federal agencies, including DHS, Energy, and Treasury, sent similar emails instructing employees to submit five bullet points detailing their accomplishments. Unlike the first email, this iteration allowed employees handling sensitive information to opt out or state that their work was confidential. OPM advised agencies to independently manage the requests, granting them discretion over participation, which was part of a broader strategy to track employee work. This new directive follows President Trump’s efforts to streamline the federal government, which have faced legal challenges and widespread disruption.
Read the original article here
A second “what did you do last week” email has been sent to some federal workers, and the situation is sparking a lot of discussion. It seems incredible that this is even happening, especially given ongoing efforts to reduce government staffing levels. The idea of shrinking the government workforce to a corporate size is completely misguided.
This whole situation highlights a fundamental misunderstanding of how government departments actually function. The scale and complexity of government work are vastly different from the private sector; a smaller workforce would lead to crippling inefficiencies. The current email requests are already meeting significant resistance; a prediction suggests that only around 40% of federal employees will even respond this time.
There are growing concerns that these emails are being used to train AI systems, potentially leading to job displacement and lucrative contracts for AI companies. This is causing significant anxiety amongst workers and raising serious ethical questions. The inherent subjectivity of the work and the already existing performance data render these emails redundant and possibly even harmful. The lack of clear standards for responding only adds to the frustration.
Many workers feel these emails are a horrible control mechanism and a colossal waste of taxpayer money. The process itself is disruptive and time-consuming. Anecdotes abound of workers spending hours simply trying to access the system and send the email, only to find the system overloaded. It seems more likely that the real intention is to catch workers who might miss sending an email, using this as grounds for dismissal, rather than for a genuine performance evaluation. This feels like a flimsy excuse for firing people.
The entire exercise feels like a bad joke; the very act of requiring detailed weekly reports from already overburdened workers seems counterproductive. Many argue that their supervisors are the appropriate individuals to seek performance reports from, not an external and potentially unauthorized entity. Many workers are choosing not to respond to this second request, citing emotional distress and questioning the authority of the sender. The entire process is viewed by many as deeply flawed, inefficient, and inappropriate.
The situation is further complicated by the belief that sensitive or classified information could be inadvertently revealed through these emails. The potential for data aggregation and misuse is a serious national security concern. This concern is heightened because many federal workers do not have access to secure systems, adding a layer of risk. There’s a growing sense of unease and distrust amongst workers.
There are some who propose humorous and defiant responses – like filling the email with repetitive phrases or workplace gossip – in order to highlight the absurdity of the situation. However, even these acts of defiance are tinged with frustration and concern. The underlying issue is not just about an intrusive email; it is about the larger context of government efficiency, workforce morale, and the misuse of technology. The situation is made worse because the emails are seemingly issued with no oversight or accountability.
The response to this second email reveals the significant disconnect between those who are implementing this policy and those on the ground who must follow it. The sheer number of employees being required to comply is leading to concerns of overwhelming systems and further strain on existing resources. The unintended consequences are apparent, causing stress and wasted productivity across several governmental bodies.
Many believe that the root of the problem lies in a fundamental misunderstanding of how government works. These issues are not simple failures in communication, but instead are emblematic of a larger lack of understanding of the burdens and realities of federal work. The whole process is creating chaos and confusion rather than achieving any legitimate goal.
The potential misuse of the collected data for AI training or even for malicious purposes is extremely disturbing, and the lack of clear accountability only deepens this concern. In the end, while there is widespread resentment and defiance toward this email campaign, it also serves as a poignant illustration of larger systemic issues. The core problem is less about the email itself, and more about the broader context of distrust, the mischaracterization of government work, and the potential for abuse of power.