Check Hold on the DOGE OPM Email

|
ByArmyConnect

BLUF

OPM email…don’t do it…yet.

DoD personnel may have received an email from OPM requesting information. The Department of Defense is responsible for reviewing the performance of its personnel, and it will conduct any review in accordance with its own procedures. When and if required, the Department will coordinate responses to the email you have received from OPM. For now, please pause any response to the OPM email titled “What did you do last week.”

Darin S. Selnick

Introduction

In recent communications, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has stirred discussions with its provocative email titled “What did you do last week?” While this message aims to foster accountability and enhance collaboration across government agencies, including the Department of Defense (DoD), it raises concerns about DOGE’s “cut now, answer later” approach. This strategy seemingly overlooks the human element of governance and the critical importance of national security. As a result, there are growing worries that such an approach could erode employee morale, diminish citizen trust, and undermine the confidence of partnering countries. This article will delve into the content of the email, the DoD’s response, and the broader implications for government operations, highlighting how these initiatives must consider the impact on people and national security to drive meaningful change within the federal landscape.

Background on DOGE

President Donald Trump established The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) on January 20th, 2025, to implement the President’s DOGE Agenda by “modernizing federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity (Executive Order 14210 2025).” This initiative reflects a commitment to enhancing the effectiveness of government operations through innovative solutions and streamlined processes. By modernizing outdated systems, DOGE aims to create a more responsive and agile government that serves its citizens better. You can find more information about the Department’s initiatives and objectives on its official website, doge.gov.

To achieve its mission, DOGE implements various initiatives that target inefficiencies across multiple government sectors, often collaborating with different agencies to identify areas for improvement. The U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization has a termination date of July 4th, 2026, emphasizing the urgency of these efforts (Executive Order 14210 2025). As DOGE works to enhance communication between agencies and ensure effective resource allocation, its influence on federal operations underscores the critical role of efficiency in maintaining public trust and ensuring that government functions optimally in the face of evolving challenges.

Content of the OPM Email

The recent email titled “What did you do last week?” from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has sparked significant attention due to its direct and somewhat confrontational tone. In this communication, DOGE requested federal employees to summarize their accomplishments from the previous week, explicitly excluding any classified information, and to include their supervisors in their replies. The directive emphasized that failure to respond would be viewed as a resignation, underscoring the urgency and seriousness of the request. While this email may promote accountability and transparency, the approach raises concerns about its implications for employee morale and the overall work environment within federal agencies.

Reaction from the Department of Defense

The Department of Defense (DoD) responded to DOGE’s email cautiously, emphasizing the need for clarity and adherence to established protocols. In an internal message, FBI Director Kash Patel instructed personnel to “pause any responses” to the OPM memo, indicating the FBI’s intent to oversee performance reviews according to its own procedures (Patel 2025). Similarly, the State Department directed employees to disregard the email, assuring them that the Department would respond on their behalf. An official stated, “No employee is obligated to report their activities outside of their department chain of command,” reflecting a pushback against DOGE’s directive. The Pentagon echoed this sentiment, asserting that it is responsible for reviewing personnel performance and will coordinate any necessary responses independently. These reactions highlight a significant divergence in approach between DOGE and other federal agencies, raising questions about the effectiveness and enforceability of such directives (CBS News).

Implications for Government Efficiency

The email from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has raised several concerns within the Department of Defense (DoD) regarding its implications for government efficiency initiatives. Critics argue that DOGE’s “cut now, answer later” approach may lead to a lack of consideration for the human element involved in federal operations, potentially jeopardizing employee morale and productivity. As noted by Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, this strategy reflects “utter disdain for federal employees,” which could hinder the collaborative spirit necessary for effective governance (American Federation of Government Employees 2025). Moreover, the pushback from various agencies suggests a growing sentiment that such communications should be more inclusive and mindful of established processes. This incident underscores the importance of balancing efficiency with respect for personnel, as effective inter-agency collaboration is crucial for fostering a culture of accountability without compromising the essential values of public service.

Broader Impact on Government Operations

The fallout from DOGE’s recent email could have significant long-term implications for government operations and efficiency efforts. As federal employees react to the perceived threats and discomfort stemming from this directive, there is a growing concern that talented individuals may seek opportunities in the private sector, where they might find more supportive work environments. This talent drain could result in inflated costs for the government and U.S. taxpayers, as replacing experienced personnel often requires extensive resources and time. Additionally, despite their inefficiencies, established systems play crucial roles in maintaining essential functions and programs for American national security and supporting the United States’ global presence through international partnerships. As noted by experts, “basic service delivery is the most visible connection populations have with government, initial donor interventions – commonly referred to as stabilization initiatives – prioritize direct service delivery often at the expense of improved governance. But when stabilization becomes a protracted crisis of ineffective governance, the need to solidify formal political structures and processes against informal power structures and economic interests becomes increasingly tied to state legitimacy and longer-term stability (Diamond and Corey 2022),” and losing seasoned employees might jeopardize the government’s ability to provide essential services and potentially lead to the country’s destabilization. The challenge lies in ensuring that efforts to improve efficiency do not inadvertently undermine the foundations of public service that uphold national interests and citizen trust.

Conclusion

The recent email from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has sparked significant debate about its impact on the Department of Defense and other federal agencies. While the intent behind the communication was to promote accountability and enhance collaboration, the reaction from various agencies reveals a troubling disconnect between DOGE’s directives and the realities of government operations. As agencies navigate the complexities of efficiency initiatives, they must consider the human element and the importance of inter-agency communication. Fostering an environment of transparency and respect will ensure that government efforts to improve efficiency do not compromise employee morale or national security.

The government has long struggled with inefficiencies that stem from outdated systems and bureaucratic processes. A deliberate plan that includes honest conversations among stakeholders is vital for addressing these challenges effectively. Cutting personnel and programs to reduce costs is not a sustainable solution; it risks undermining critical functions supporting the nation’s interests and well-being. A strategic approach that prioritizes modernization, employee engagement, and resource allocation can help establish a more effective and resilient government, ultimately benefiting both public servants and the citizens they serve. By focusing on thoughtful reforms rather than reactionary cuts, the government can create a framework for sustained improvement and accountability.

Works Cited

Similar Posts