AI News Monitor

Federal employees across the U.S. government were asked to summarize their weekly accomplishments in an email sent by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) over the weekend. The directive, reportedly orchestrated by Elon Musk, has sparked controversy as sources reveal the responses will be analyzed by an artificial intelligence (AI) system to determine whether employees’ roles are “mission-critical.”

The email, sent to federal workers on Saturday, requested employees to list five bullet points summarizing their work from the previous week and copy their managers. While the OPM email did not mention consequences for non-compliance, Musk had earlier posted on X that failure to respond would be treated as a resignation. However, the Justice Department clarified Monday that responses are voluntary and non-response does not equate to resignation.

According to three sources familiar with the plan, the responses will be fed into a Large Language Model (LLM), an advanced AI system designed to process and analyze large amounts of text data. The AI will assess whether employees’ work is essential to their agencies’ missions.

The directive has faced significant pushback from federal unions, workers, and even some agencies. A coalition of unions has amended an ongoing lawsuit against OPM, arguing that the order is unlawful and violates proper procedures. Lawyer Norm Eisen, representing the plaintiffs, called the demand “patronizing” and illegal.

Several agencies, including the Justice Department, FBI, State Department, and National Institutes of Health, instructed employees not to respond to the email, citing the sensitive nature of their work. Meanwhile, other agencies, such as the Department of Transportation and Health and Human Services, encouraged compliance, though HHS warned employees that their responses could potentially be accessed by “malign foreign actors.”

President Donald Trump praised Musk’s initiative, calling it “genius” and suggesting that non-responders might not exist or be actively working. Musk, who has been tasked with reducing the federal workforce by up to 10%, defended the move on X, criticizing what he called “incompetence” and “contempt” for taxpayer dollars.

The use of AI to evaluate federal workers’ roles has raised concerns about transparency and fairness. Critics argue that the system could overlook the nuanced nature of government work, while supporters see it as a step toward streamlining bureaucracy.

As the debate continues, the future of the initiative remains uncertain, with legal challenges and agency pushback complicating its implementation. For now, federal employees are left navigating the fallout of a directive that has divided the government and sparked a broader conversation about the role of AI in workforce management.