Connect with us

Business

Trump backs Musk’s ultimatum as ‘great’ idea, but some aren’t responding

Published

5 minute read

From The Center Square

By 

Some federal agencies aren’t planning to tell billionaire cost-cutting boss Elon Musk what they accomplished last week as President Donald Trump looks to reshape the federal workforce.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which serves as the federal government’s human resources office, sent a short email Saturday to all federal employees asking them what they accomplished last week. It asked them to respond with five bullets of what they accomplished and to include their supervisor on the reply. Musk, the Tesla boss and White House advisor, said he wanted to know how many employees were actually checking emails and said the bar was low for responses.

Trump said Monday the email was a “great” idea.

“We have people that don’t show up to work and nobody even knows if they work for the government so by asking the question ‘tell us what you did this week,’ what [Elon’s] doing is saying are you actually working?” Trump said. “And then, if you don’t answer, you’re sort of semi-fired or you’re fired because a lot of people aren’t answering because they don’t exist, that’s how badly various parts of our government were run.”

Musk called the email “a very basic pulse check.”

“The reason this matters is that a significant number of people who are supposed to be working for the government are doing so little work that they are not checking their email at all!” Musk wrote on X. “In some cases, we believe non-existent people or the identities of dead people are being used to collect paychecks. In other words, there is outright fraud.”

Some unions immediately pushed back on the email. The American Federation of Government Employees, which represents about 800,000 federal employees, said it was a bullying technique.

“It has become even more clear that the thoughtless and bullying email was meant to intimidate federal employees and cause mass confusion. Agencies across the federal government have acknowledged that confusion and that they were unaware the email was being sent,” AFGE National President Everett Kelley said. “Though we believe the email and the resulting agency instructions are improper, we advise that you comply with any directive that has come from your agency. Simply put, if your agency has asked you to reply, you should do so and highlight the important work that you do for the American people.”

Kelley also said union members who do respond should ask for overtime.

“If you wish to respond, you may wish to ask your supervisor for any overtime or compensatory time that you may be entitled,” he wrote.

But some federal agencies are ignoring the email. Justice Department employees were told they don’t need to respond. FBI Director Kash Patel told his employees to “pause any responses” to the OPM email. Other agencies not planning to participate include the State Department, the National Institutes of Health and the National Security Agency.

The largest federal agency also isn’t playing along. In a letter to Department of Defense employees, Darin Selnick, who is performing the duties of the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said it does its own performance reviews.

“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,” Selnick wrote. “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.'”

Patel’s response at the FBI was similar.

“The FBI, through the Office of the Director, is in charge of all of our review processes and will conduct reviews in accordance with FBI procedures,” Patel wrote. “When and if further information is required, we will coordinate the responses. For now, please pause any responses.”

Since returning to the White House, Trump has promised to overhaul the federal workforce through mass layoffs, plans to shutter some federal agencies and efforts to get rid of waste and redundancy.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Senator wants to torpedo Canada’s oil and gas industry

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Recently, without much fanfare, Senator Rosa Galvez re-pitched a piece of legislation that died on the vine when former prime minister Justin Trudeau prorogued Parliament in January. Her “Climate-Aligned Finance Act” (CAFA), which would basically bring a form of BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) to Canada’s oil and gas sector, would much better be left in its current legislative oblivion.

CAFA would essentially treat Canada’s oil and gas sector like an enemy of the state—a state, in Senator Galvez’ view, where all values are subordinate to greenhouse gas emission control. Think I’m kidding? Per CAFA, alignment with national climate commitments means that everyone engaged in federal investment in “emission intensive activities [read, the entire oil and gas sector] must give precedence to that duty over all other duties and obligations of office, and, for that purpose, ensuring the entity is in alignment with climate commitments is deemed to be a superseding matter of public interest.”

In plain English, CAFA would require anyone involved in federal financing (or federally-regulated financing) of the oil and gas sector to divest their Canadian federal investments in the oil and gas sector. And the government would sanction those who argue against it.

There’s another disturbing component to CAFA—in short, it stacks investment decision-making boards. CAFA requires at least one board member of every federally-regulated financial institution to have “climate expertise.” How is “climate expertise” defined? CAFA says it includes people with experience in climate science, social science, Indgineuous “ways of knowing,” and people who have “acute lived experience related to the physical or economic damages of climate change.” (Stacking advisory boards like this, by the way, is a great way to build public distrust in governmental advisory boards, which, in our post-COVID world, is probably not all that high. Might want to rethink this, senator.)

Clearly, Senator Galvez’ CAFA is draconian public policy dressed up in drab finance-speak camouflage. But here’s what it would do. By making federal investment off-limits to oil and gas companies, it would quickly put negative pressure on investment from both national and international investors, effectively starving the sector for capital. After all, if a company’s activities are anathema to its own federal regulators or investment organs, and are statutorily prohibited from even verbally defending such investments, who in their right minds would want to invest?

And that is the BDS of CAFA. In so many words, it calls on the Canadian federal government to boycott, divest from, and sanction Canada’s oil and gas sector—which powers our country, produces a huge share of our exports, and employs people from coast to coast. Senator Galvez would like to see her Climate-Aligned Finance Act (CAFA) resurrected by the Carney government, whose energy policy to-date has been less than crystal clear. But for the sake of Canadians, it should stay dead.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Automotive

Opposition Conservatives fail in attempt to “Pull the Plug” on Carney’s Electric Vehicle Mandate

Published on

From Conservative Party Communications

After a Lost Liberal Decade of rising costs and slow growth, Mark Carney wants you to think his government has moved on from Justin Trudeau’s failed policies.

Unfortunately for Canadians, Carney has no interest in scrapping one of his predecessor’s most reckless and costly ideas: a zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate starting next year that will ultimately ban Canadians from buying gas-powered cars by 2035.

As the required percentage of ZEV sales increases each year, the government wants to force manufacturers and importers to buy costly credits of up to $20,000 for every EV they are short of the Liberals’ quota – a huge expense that will ultimately be passed on to, and paid by Canadian consumers.

That’s why Conservatives have introduced a motion to end this harmful scheme, ensuring Canadians can continue to buy the kind of car they need at a price they can afford.

EVs are great for many families, who should always be free to purchase the vehicle of their choice. But for many Canadians – who live in cold environments or travel long distances – they can be practically useless, especially without the infrastructure to power them.

One government report estimated that changes to Canadian infrastructure required to support a transition to ZEVs could cost up to $300 billion by 2040. On top of the costs already imposed on manufacturers and buyers, this policy will require billions in new tax dollars and government debt.

No wonder one 2024 survey found two thirds of Canadians find the 2035 target is unrealistic.

As unjust tariffs threaten an automotive sector which contributes billions to our GDP, the Liberals continue to put their elitist, top-down ideology ahead of the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of proud Canadian workers.

While Carney talks about change, Conservatives are here to deliver. That’s why we’re fighting to repeal the ZEV mandate, scrap the industrial carbon tax and cancel Liberal fuel standards. We trust Canadians – not Ottawa’s Liberal elite – to make the best decisions for themselves and their families.

It’s time to put Canadians back in the driver’s seat.

Continue Reading

Trending

X