In recent days, a federal employee’s response to an email sent by billionaire Elon Musk has sparked widespread discussion on social media. The email, sent under the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), required employees to list the tasks they completed over the weekend.
However, for one woman, this email represented something much deeper—a display of control and power that she likened to living in North Korea.
Her emotional response, shared through a video, has drawn attention to concerns regarding workplace authority, power dynamics, and the broader implications of Musk’s influence on government institutions. Musk himself reacted by sharing a BBC report on North Korea, suggesting that the comparison was “out of touch with reality.”
The woman, a federal employee, expressed a sense of dread upon receiving and replying to the email. She described the experience as terrifying, explaining how it felt like an exercise in demonstrating control over employees. According to her, the message sent an unspoken threat—either comply or face the consequences.
The email itself did not explicitly state that failure to respond would result in termination, but a post on X (formerly Twitter) seemed to imply that non-compliance could be interpreted as a resignation.
This ambiguity left employees in a state of confusion and fear. Leadership at her agency confirmed the email’s authenticity but was uncertain about whether the implied threat held any weight. As a result, each employee was left to decide how to respond.
For the woman in the video, the situation felt oppressive. She described the atmosphere as one where employees were expected to obey without question, comparing it to the totalitarian control she imagined North Korea to exert over its citizens.
Out of touch with reality, to say the least https://t.co/n0rYd2ROiY pic.twitter.com/dozJ53SN5M
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 27, 2025
Her frustration was evident as she questioned why Elon Musk, a billionaire businessman with no direct authority over federal employees, had the power to impose such directives.
“Who the f**k is Elon?” she asked, highlighting her disbelief that Musk had assumed a role she viewed as dictatorial. She argued that his authority in the tech industry did not extend to government personnel management and that his involvement in federal employee oversight was deeply concerning.
Another major point of contention was the way Musk’s approach undermined the expertise and experience of government employees. The woman pointed out that many of these workers had dedicated their lives to public service, acquiring specialized knowledge and skills over decades.
Read : Unbelievable! Elon Musk Posts 154 Times a Day on X
Yet, they were now being subjected to directives from a tech mogul with no background in public administration. In her view, this disregard for professional experience was not only disrespectful but also damaging to the integrity of government institutions. She feared that such an approach could lead to instability and inefficiency, rather than the effectiveness that Musk claimed to seek.
Elon Musk, known for his outspoken and often controversial statements, did not remain silent on the matter. In response to the viral video, he shared a BBC article detailing the severe conditions in North Korea, including reports of starvation.
His caption, “Out of touch with reality, to say the least,” suggested that he found the woman’s comparison to be exaggerated and misplaced. By referencing the extreme hardships faced by North Korean citizens, Musk appeared to be dismissing the idea that a work-related email could be likened to life under a dictatorship.
His response further fueled debate, with some agreeing with his stance and others supporting the federal employee’s perspective on power dynamics in the workplace.
Musk’s email, titled “What did you do last week?”, was reportedly sent after a meeting with former President Donald Trump. During Trump’s first Cabinet meeting of his second term, Musk had been urged to take a more aggressive approach in improving government efficiency.
The email, and the subsequent pushback, underscored the tension between corporate-style management and traditional government structures. Critics argued that applying private-sector efficiency models to public institutions overlooked the complexities and nuances of government work.
For many federal employees, the incident raised concerns about job security, autonomy, and the potential for future directives that might impose similar demands.
Some saw the email as a simple request for accountability, while others viewed it as a sign of growing authoritarian tendencies in workplace management. The debate also touched on broader issues of workplace culture, employee rights, and the evolving relationship between government and private industry.
Supporters of Musk’s approach argued that accountability and productivity should be prioritized in government roles, just as they are in the private sector.
They saw the email as a necessary step toward improving efficiency and ensuring that taxpayer money was being used effectively. From their perspective, the backlash was an overreaction, and the woman’s comparison to North Korea was not only inaccurate but also disrespectful to those who endure real oppression.
On the other hand, critics maintained that the email represented an overreach of power and a disregard for employee well-being. They pointed out that government work often involves complex processes that cannot be measured in the same way as tasks in a corporate setting.
Furthermore, they argued that the fear and anxiety caused by the email suggested deeper issues with leadership and communication within government institutions. The ambiguity of the message, particularly regarding potential consequences for non-compliance, only added to employees’ stress and uncertainty.
The incident also highlighted the influence that individuals like Musk can have over government operations. As a prominent business figure with close ties to political leaders, Musk’s involvement in government affairs has been both praised and criticized.
While some view his contributions as valuable innovations, others worry about the concentration of power in the hands of a few influential figures. The email controversy served as a reminder of the growing intersection between technology, business, and governance.
As the debate continues, it raises important questions about workplace dynamics, leadership accountability, and the balance of power in professional environments. Should employees be required to report their activities in such detail? Should private-sector leaders have a say in government operations? And most importantly, how should power be exercised in a way that respects both efficiency and employee rights?
For the federal employee who spoke out, the experience was a chilling reminder of what unchecked power can look like. Whether or not one agrees with her comparison to North Korea, her words reflect a broader sentiment of unease in workplaces where authority is wielded without clear communication or regard for individual agency.
As government agencies navigate these challenges, the need for transparency, fair treatment, and respect for professional expertise remains more critical than ever.
let’s enjoy few years on earth with peace and happiness….✍🏼🙏