Billionaire Elon Musk’s influence over a traditionally nonpartisan agency that oversees the federal workforce culminated in the government’s stunning proposal Tuesday offering
employees an inducement to resign, according to four people familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal talks.
The proposal,
emailed late in the day to many of the nation’s 2.3 million federal workers, blindsided some advisers to President Donald Trump, including officials in the budget office and agencies that typically would be consulted in advance of such monumental changes to personnel and spending policies, the people said.
Since Trump took office, Musk has moved quickly to exert control over the Office of Personnel Management, the small independent agency that acts as a kind of human resources department for the federal government, issuing policy for agencies to implement. Musk personally visited the OPM’s offices Friday, and several of his longtime surrogates — including Anthony Armstrong, who helped Musk buy Twitter; Brian Bjelde, who ran human resources for Musk’s firm SpaceX; and Amanda Scales, who worked at Musk’s artificial intelligence firm, xAI — have been installed in senior leadership roles at its offices in downtown Washington, the people said.
Musk’s role in orchestrating what is intended to be the biggest reorganization of federal workers in decades highlights the broad influence he now enjoys across several federal agencies and the White House as his role transcends that of presidential adviser to an executor of Trump’s vision for the federal government.
When Trump tapped Musk to lead the “Department of Government Efficiency” alongside entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy after the election, it was pitched as a panel outside the government that would give nonbinding recommendations to the White House and Congress. Since then, however, Musk has burrowed inside the federal government, a shift that already has brought a striking overhaul of the workforce, and more measures apparently are underway.
In addition to the personnel office, Musk allies are now running the U.S. Digital Service, a White House office that a Trump executive order renamed the U.S. DOGE Service. Musk’s lieutenants have been interviewing the existing staff of that agency, gauging workers’ views on DOGE, questions that have raised concerns of a loyalty test.
Legal experts inside and outside the government strongly criticized the approach, arguing it almost certainly violates federal law and offers few protections for workers.
The email, for instance, says workers who accept the offer will be paid through Sept. 30, the end of the federal fiscal year. But the OPM’s authority to make that offer is unclear, the experts said: Federal employees’ salaries are funded by federal agencies, not by the OPM. The administration has some limited tools to offer early retirements, but they are minimal and involve only small sums of money.
In addition, the agencies are funded only through March 14, when the government will shut down unless Congress acts to approve new spending. Promising workers payment through September is a “flat-out violation” of a 19th-century law that prevents the administration from agreeing to spend money it does not have, said David Super, an administrative law professor at Georgetown University.
These questions have fueled a sense of unease among federal employees weighing the offer. On one hand, many are exhausted by the chaos of Trump’s first week back in office and the criticism directed their way. But, in interviews with The Washington Post, more than a dozen federal workers who received the email also expressed skepticism about the terms, fearing that the Trump administration could not be trusted to pay any wages or benefits promised to those who agree to depart. They spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retribution at a time when Trump has moved to make it easier to fire federal employees.
“What guarantee does an employee who might take this offer have of actually receiving payment? When there is government immunity, no budget, and Congress can declare this illegal?” said Sheria Smith, head of the union that represents Education Department employees.
Those fears may have merit: Musk’s companies have reneged on commitments to workers in the past. During the covid-19 pandemic in 2020, Tesla gave employees permission to remain at home if they did not feel comfortable reporting to its factory but later sent termination notices to some of them alleging “failure to return to work.”
In 2022, Musk denied that he aimed to lay off 75 percent of the Twitter staff — plans first reported by The Post — but later proceeded to gut the company’s workforce by 80 percent. After he took over the company,
Twitter also was sued over its alleged failure to pay millions in rent.