The Government Is Ditching Elon Musk’s Infamous ‘5 Things’ Emails. Here’s Why
In a significant shift, the Trump administration has officially scrapped Elon Musk’s controversial “5 things” email directive for federal workers. This policy, introduced in March 2025, required employees to report five weekly accomplishments, aiming to boost accountability but faced substantial backlash.
The initiative, led by Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, mandated weekly emails starting with “What did you do last week?” Employees were to list five achievements, avoiding classified info, and copy their managers. The goal was to enhance managerial oversight.
However, the rollout was abrupt, catching department heads off guard and causing confusion. Many questioned if compliance was mandatory. The policy lacked support from agency leaders, leading to its quick demise.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) soon clarified it would no longer manage the process. OPM chief Scott Kupor emphasized that existing tools were sufficient and that the manual process was inefficient. This lack of efficiency was a key reason for ending the policy.
OPM shifted focus to regular check-ins and stricter performance systems. The episode highlights the challenges of implementing tech-style changes in government, especially under high-profile figures like Musk, and the need for clear communication and consensus.
In summary, the “5 things” policy was ended due to confusion, inefficiency, and the existence of better alternatives. The government now prioritizes robust performance management over weekly emails.
html
Details of the Controversial Policy and Its Demise
The “5 things” directive, introduced in March 2025, required all federal employees to respond to a weekly email starting with the question: “What did you do last week?” Workers were instructed to provide approximately five bullet points summarizing their key accomplishments and include their manager on the response. The policy explicitly stated: “Please do not send any classified information, links, or attachments,” aiming to avoid security risks while promoting transparency.
The initiative was spearheaded by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, with the goal of enhancing managerial oversight and workplace accountability. However, the rollout was marred by confusion, as many department heads were caught off guard, unsure whether compliance was mandatory. This lack of clarity led to widespread frustration among federal workers.
The policy also faced significant pushback from agency leaders, who largely withheld their support. This lack of buy-in was a critical factor in its short-lived implementation. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), responsible for federal HR, quickly distanced itself from the process. OPM chief Scott Kupor stated, “OPM was no longer going to manage the five things process nor utilize it internally,” emphasizing the inefficiency of the manual system.
Kupor further explained that the process was deemed “very manual and not efficient,” prompting OPM to evaluate whether the policy provided real value. He noted, “We should see if we’re getting the value out of it that the people who put it in place thought they were.” This sentiment was echoed by HR managers, who preferred automated or existing tools for performance tracking over the emailed “5 things” system.
In the aftermath, the weekly reporting directive was phased out, with OPM supporting a transition to more robust performance management tactics. The episode underscored the challenges of implementing tech-industry-style reforms in government settings, particularly under the leadership of high-profile figures like Musk. It also highlighted the importance of clear communication and stakeholder consensus in policy implementation.
As federal agencies move forward, the focus has shifted to regular employee check-ins and stricter performance evaluation systems. This approach aims to balance accountability with efficiency, addressing the shortcomings of the “5 things” email directive while aligning with modern workforce management practices.
Conclusion
The “5 things” email policy, though well-intentioned, ultimately failed to achieve its goals due to confusion, inefficiency, and lack of support. The policy’s abrupt implementation and manual reporting process led to widespread frustration among federal workers and agency leaders. The Office of Personnel Management’s decision to discontinue the practice highlights the importance of aligning policy changes with existing systems and ensuring stakeholder buy-in.
As the government shifts focus to more robust performance management systems, the episode serves as a reminder of the challenges in implementing tech-style reforms in federal settings. Moving forward, the emphasis on regular check-ins and efficient tracking tools aims to balance accountability with operational efficiency, offering a more sustainable approach to workplace oversight.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was the “5 things” email policy scrapped?
The policy was ended due to confusion, inefficiency, and lack of support. It was deemed too manual and failed to provide the intended value for accountability and oversight.
What did the “5 things” email policy involve?
Federal employees were required to send a weekly email starting with “What did you do last week?” and list five accomplishments. They were instructed to avoid classified information and include their manager on the response.
Who led the “5 things” policy initiative?
The policy was spearheaded by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) as part of an effort to enhance accountability and managerial oversight.
What challenges did the “5 things” policy face?
The policy faced confusion about compliance, inefficiency due to its manual nature, and significant pushback from agency leaders and federal workers. These factors led to its quick demise.
What replaced the “5 things” email directive?
The government shifted focus to regular employee check-ins and stricter performance evaluation systems. These methods aim to improve accountability while leveraging more efficient tools and processes.