Despite his threats, Elon Musk can't simply fire federal employees for not responding to an email, attorneys and former senior federal officials told Axios.

Why it matters: So far legal barriers haven't stopped Musk's DOGE purge — and he even has President Trump's explicit support in his latest effort — yet Musk may now be bumping up against a harder boundary.

• For the first time, federal agencies appear to be pushing back, and they're getting support from the executive branch, despite what Trump is saying publicly.

The big picture: It's too early to tell if agencies will hold the line and terminate workers for failing to reply to the email, sent from the Office for Personnel Management on Saturday with the subject line "What did you do last week?"

• The deadline to respond was Monday at 11:59 pm EST.
• Still, it's clear that some agency heads — who've been confirmed by the Senate in contrast to Musk's more murky power — are flexing muscle against DOGE, said one former senior OPM official familiar with the agency's workings.
• OPM doesn't actually have the authority to reach into agencies and simply fire workers. That's in agency hands, and with Musk's latest move, "I think you're starting to see some of that tension playing out," the official said.

Late on Monday, OPM issued further guidance making clear that decisions are left to individual agencies, and that the president is not involved in such decisions.

• "It is agency leadership's decision as to what actions are taken," per the memo. "At Counsel's direction, in order to comport with the Presidential Records Act, the Executive Office of the President is exempted from this exercise."

Where it stands: Many federal agencies, including the FBI, the Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security, have already told workers not to respond to the OPM email. Some have explicitly told workers to reply.

• Before the OPM email went out, Musk posted about it on X and said those who didn't respond would be terminated.
• The threat was echoed by Trump on Monday. If employees don't respond, "you're sort of semi-fired or you're fired," he said.
• Musk doubled down Monday night. Responding to a post on X that called for anyone who didn't answer the email to be fired, he wrote: "Subject to the discretion of the President, they will be given another chance. Failure to respond a second time will result in termination."

Yes, but: There are threats and there are actions.

• The email that millions of federal workers received did not actually threaten anyone with termination.
• Perhaps more significantly, even after Trump's comments Monday, an administration official confirmed to Axios that it is up to agencies to decide what steps to take next regarding the "what did you do" email.
• In other words, notwithstanding Musk's threat or Trump's assertion, the federal government's own HR office is effectively saying no one has to face a penalty for not answering.

State of play: "Neither DOGE nor OPM has authority to fire these federal workers," said David Super, a professor at Georgetown Law School whose research focuses on administrative law.

• According to Tamara Slater, a shareholder at Alan Lescht & Associates, a D.C. law firm that represents federal employees, "I"m not aware of any authority that would allow OPM to direct an agency to fire somebody."

Between the lines: Even if agencies follow Musk's guidance, and try to fire employees for not responding, they would likely face challenges defending that move.

• "There are all of these limitations on the reasons why somebody can be fired," Slater said. "The idea that not responding to a single email is going to meet that standard is a legal question."
• It's hard to imagine such a firing would be upheld, she said.

Reality check: "DOGE has proven that it has the political power to force agencies to do pretty much anything that it chooses to do, whether legal or not," Georgetown's Super said.

• And answering the question — what did you do last week — for a lot of workers isn't as simple as you might imagine.
• Super noted that some workers are barred from sharing the details of their work. Certain staffers at the Securities and Exchange Commission aren't supposed to disclose such information to guard against affecting stock prices. Other federal workers are dealing in classified information.
• Privacy and security are also big concerns. "Assume that what you write will be read by malign foreign actors and tailor your response accordingly," Health and Human Services employees were told, per the Washington Post.

The federal agency that sent out an email over the weekend asking workers what they accomplished last week can't fire those workers for not responding, claims an amended lawsuit filed Monday on behalf of federal employees.

Why it matters: It's the latest potential legal stumbling block for DOGE and Elon Musk's slash-and-burn workforce strategy.

Catch up fast: Over the weekend, at President Trump's prodding to be more aggressive, Musk announced that workers would get an email asking what they'd done in the past week. "Failure to respond will be taken as a resignation," he said.

• The email went out on Saturday to millions of workers — subject line "What did you do last week"? — causing confusion and an array of responses inside federal agencies, with many telling employees not to respond.
• Crucially, the email did not threaten workers with termination.

Where it stands: On Monday afternoon, President Trump appeared to back Musk's threat — if employees don't respond to that email, "you're sort of semi-fired or you're fired," he said, answering reporter questions during an event with French President Emanuel Macron.

• "A lot of people are not answering because they don't even exist."

Reality check: Musk and the White House have provided no evidence to back up that claim.

Zoom in: The Monday lawsuit amends an earlier complaint filed by a coalition of unions, including the AFL-CIO and American Federation of Government Employees.

• It challenges the legality of mass firings of probationary workers — those that have been employed in their current roles for only a short time. Tens of thousands of such workers have been terminated, per the suit.
• Only federal agencies have the ability to hire and fire their workers, the lawsuit says.

The Office of Personnel Management, the federal government's HR office, which sent out the email over the weekend, does not have that authority, the suit alleges.

• "In creating OPM and delegating duties to its Director, Congress did not authorize OPM or its Director to order the termination of employees at any other federal agency."

The intrigue: Several federal agencies have told their workers not to respond to the email request.

• If their agency does require a response, workers have until 11:59 pm Monday to do so.
• After that, it's up to federal agencies to decide next steps, a White House official told Axios Monday afternoon — before President Trump's "semi-firing" comment.

What to watch: Also on Monday, an independent federal oversight agency said that some of the administration's mass firings of probationary workers were unlawful, per a report in Government Executive.

The bottom line: It's a confusing time to work for the federal government.

Editor's Note: This story has been updated with additional reporting on the firings of probationary workers.

The Trump administration's big cuts to the federal government are hitting one group particularly hard — the country's veterans.

Why it matters: Many of those who've served in the military derive a sense of purpose and belonging from their government work — viewing it as a way to serve their country and help their peers outside of active duty.

The big picture: It's not yet clear how many military vets have been fired, or will be. Last year veterans made up 28% of the federal workforce, per federal data — a far bigger share than the 5% in the private sector.

• About 36% of the vets working in civil service, more than 200,000 in total, are disabled or have a serious health condition, per federal data.

"This is the largest attack on veteran employment in our lifetime," says William Attig, executive director at the Union Veterans Council, a labor group that represents many of these workers.

• Attig, who was deployed in Iraq from 2003 to 2009, has been talking to newly unemployed members, trying to get a tally of everyone who's lost a job.

Zoom in: Some veterans, still holding on to their jobs for now, are waiting for the hammer to drop.

• "We're being smeared as leeches, but I just want to serve my country and provide for my family," an employee at the Department of Defense who is a disabled veteran, and requested anonymity because he didn't want to put his job further at risk, told Axios.
• He was thrilled to land his job just a few months ago, but is anxiously waiting to see if he'll be one of the more than 5,000 workers the Pentagon said it would fire next week.

Between the lines: Privately, GOP lawmakers are growing uneasy with cuts that impact veterans, Politico reports, adding that vets have been "disproportionately affected" by the firings.

For the record: The White House did not say how many veterans have been fired. At least one department, Interior, has reportedly carved out an exception for them.

• "President Trump has consistently stood up for our brave men and women in uniform – delivering crucial reforms that improved VA healthcare, decreased Veteran homelessness, and enhanced education benefits," said White House spokesperson Anna Kelly in an email.

Zoom out: There are a few reasons government work attracts vets. The federal government has a "veterans preference" — put simply, when deciding among a group of qualified candidates, they're first in line.

• "You'd have to jump through a lot of hoops to not hire a veteran," said a former federal official who worked in human capital.
• With more veterans working in government, more feel welcomed to work among people who understand them. Others are drawn to the retirement benefits — years of military service counts towards your federal pension.

Plus, many of these folks feel drawn to mission-driven employment. "Most veterans feel like they're putting on another uniform," says Attig.

• These jobs are a crucial piece of the puzzle in post-military life, he says, adding that it's also a key part of suicide prevention for this at-risk group.
• "One of the most important things you can do for veterans is to find them a job."

Multiple agencies and unions have told federal workers not to respond to a new email demanding that they account for their work over the last week — despite Elon Musk's threat they'll lose their jobs if they don't.

Why it matters: As much as Musk's DOGE effort has disrupted the federal government so far, there's been relatively little tangible internal pushback — until now.

• The high-stakes stand-off could reshape the federal workforce over the next couple of days and will test the depth of President Trump's support for Musk's slash-and-burn campaign.

Catch up quick: Musk posted to X on Saturday afternoon that all federal employees would get an email asking them to explain what they'd accomplished this week.

• Failure to respond, he said, would be tantamount to resignation. It followed a Trump post to Truth Social early Saturday calling on Musk to get more aggressive with his DOGE project.
• The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) sent the email Saturday afternoon, telling people they had until 11:59 p.m. ET on Monday to respond. (The email did not include Musk's or-else threat.)

Zoom out: Two of the largest unions representing federal workers, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), told their members to be cautious responding, or not to respond.

• "AFGE will challenge any unlawful terminations of our members and federal employees across the country," union president Everett Kelley said in a statement Saturday night.
• Kelley sent a letter to OPM acting director Charles Ezell on Sunday, demanding the email be withdrawn by that night. The AFGE also sent guidance to members Sunday saying they should respond if ordered to do so by their agencies.

Zoom in: Beyond the unions, a number of federal departments and agencies also appear to have told employees not to respond.

• The Department of Defense told its employees that only the department is responsible for "reviewing the performance of its personnel" and it will undertake employee reviews "in accordance with its own procedures." Employees were told to disregard the OPM email.
• NBC reported that new FBI director Kash Patel told employees not to answer the email.
• Government Executive reported that NOAA and NSA employees were told the same.
• The New York Times reported that State Department employees were also told not to respond.

OPM's email led to chaos and confusion inside agencies.

For example, Employees at the Department of Homeland Security were told not to respond to the Musk directive and that management would handle it, per an email viewed by Axios, from R.D. "Tex" Alles, deputy under secretary for Management at the agency.

• But the email conflicted with guidance on how to respond — while keeping classified information safe — given earlier so some DHS workers from a mid level manager, also viewed by Axios.

The manager also listed some examples of "inappropriate" responses that appeared to mock Musk, including:

• "Drafted an IFR to implement the Martian Exclusion Act of 2040" and "Provided ICE operational plans for their raid next week on the Martian gang that took over Coolidge Hotel in Musktopia. Mars. Etc"
• The weekend guidance emails are creating chaos and in some cases real fear and anxiety for federal employees, one worker said.

Meanwhile, the National Weather Service has instructed staff to reply to the OPM email in coordination with their supervisor, according to an email shared with Axios.

For the record: An OPM spokesperson reiterated that the office was making the request, but said agencies will determine any next steps.

• The White House did not immediately respond to requests for clarification on the timing of those determinations — before the deadline to reply, as some have already done; or after replies have been received.

What we're watching: It remains unclear what will actually happen if employees don't respond.

• Legal action is possible, if not likely, on Monday to try and block any response.
• There's also the unanswered question of what OPM and agencies will do with all these emails, which could end up numbering in the millions.

Go deeper: Americans wary of Elon Musk and DOGE, recent polls show

Editor's note: This story has been updated with further details on AFGE's communication with members.

Andrew Freedman contributed reporting.

Are you a federal employee with a tip? You can reach Emily Peck confidentially on Signal @emilyrpeck.71.

The IRS started laying off employees on Thursday, just as tax season kicks into high gear.

Why it matters: The terminations, reportedly of 6,000 relatively new workers at the agency, are part of President Trump's broader purge of the federal workforce.

Zoom in: Layoffs began Thursday for dozens of Denver-based Internal Revenue Service employees.

• Between 120 and 150 Denver IRS employees are on the chopping block, National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 32 president Patricia Allen told Axios Denver on Thursday morning.
• Most are probationary employees, she said, and are being cut from multiple divisions, including collections and tax compliance.
• Some employees were laid off early Thursday morning, Allen said. As of mid-morning, more were waiting for an email that was expected to tell them they had 30 minutes to vacate the premises.

"There are many, many, more than 100,000 people working to collect taxes, and not all of them are fully occupied," Kevin Hassett, director of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, told reporters this afternoon.

• Asked if the cuts numbered around 3,500, Hassett said that "probably can get bigger, especially as we improve the IT at the IRS."

What they're saying: "I've been with the IRS for 20 years, and I've never seen this kind of layoff. Never," the union's Allen said.

• The national president of Allen's union, Doreen Greenwald, called the firings a "recipe for economic disaster."
• "In the middle of a tax filing season, when taxpayers expect prompt customer service and smooth processing of their tax returns, the administration has chosen to decimate the whole operation by sending dedicated civil servants to the unemployment lines."
• The White House was not immediately available to comment on the layoffs or their impact on tax season.

Zoom out: Just two weeks ago, IRS employees who are critical to tax season were told they would not be able to take the administration's so-called "deferred resignation" offer until after tax season.

• It's not yet clear whether the layoffs will slow down the filing season, but tax experts are warning about the possibility. The agency has long been plagued by staffing shortages.
• Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Wednesday evening that Trump's goal is to "abolish" the IRS.

Arlene R., who requested partial anonymity for fear of retribution, is a Denver employee who has worked for the past five months in the IRS' special compliance department overseeing collections.

• She was bracing for the termination letter to hit her inbox at any point Thursday morning.
• "So many of us don't even know how we're going to make our rent, how we're going to put food on the table," she told Axios Denver. "This is just absolutely incredible that one man has this power to do this."

Editor's Note: This story has been updated with White House comments.

Corporate leaders are feeling good: A measure of CEO confidence rose to its highest level in three years, per a post-inauguration survey released Thursday morning.

Why it matters: The surge happened even as President Trump announced new tariffs on the country's largest trading partners, sparking fears of economic fallout for both companies and consumers.

How they did it: 134 CEOs from the Fortune Global 500 were surveyed from January 27 to February 10 by the Conference Board, in conjunction with The Business Council, a CEO membership group.

• Leaders were asked how they see current economic conditions, and expectations for conditions over the next six months in their own industry and the economy writ large.

What they found: Confidence surged 9 points to 60, the highest level since 2022 — and the first significant jump into clear positive territory in years (any number over 50 is considered positive).

Reality check: There are headwinds here. The share of executives that said geopolitical instability was a high-impact risk rose to 55%, up from 52% the previous quarter.

• Fewer said they were expecting to increase the size of their workforce — only 32%, compared to 40% in the previous survey.
• Other surveys out recently are painting a less rosy vibe, as well. Small business optimism fell in January, and optimism also declined among manufacturers in a survey from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Companies are scrambling to rejigger, recast or just kill their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies to avoid the wrath of the White House.

Why it matters: Firms are on a tightrope with legal risks on either side — stick with DEI and face a Trump DOJ investigation or lawsuit; or abandon it, and face the potential for lawsuits from employees and job applicants.

• Either way companies run the risk of angering customers and staff.

Where it stands: Corporate America's DEI anxiety intensified after February 5, when newly sworn-in attorney general Pam Bondi issued a memo directing the DOJ Civil Rights division "to investigate, eliminate, and penalize illegal DEI and DEIA preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities in the private sector."

• By March 1, the division should report "the most egregious and discriminatory DEI" practitioners, per the memo.
• That followed an executive order Trump signed the day after taking office that directed agencies to make lists of companies to target.

What they're saying: Since the Bondi memo came out, "I have been on the phone with companies almost nonstop," says Jonathan Segal, an employment attorney at Duane Morris.

• And there's been a flurry of news about several firms including Accenture, Booz Allen, Goldman Sachs and Disney, pulling back or scrapping DEI altogether.

Zoom in: The disappearing policies mostly involve explicitly targeting certain underrepresented groups in hiring. Lawyers say some of these practices were always dicey under federal anti-discrimination laws.

On the chopping block are things like:

• Hiring targets: Specifically, where firms set goals to employ a certain share of Black people or women or folks in other minority groups. McDonald's and Meta recently set aside aspirational representation goals.
• Set asides: Along those lines, firms should avoid saying they want to hire from a certain racial or ethnic group for a certain position, or consider race or gender when deciding between candidates, Segal says.
• Diverse slates: The same reasoning is leading companies to pull back on these policies, which direct recruiters to find certain kinds of candidates in the interview process. Meta recently scrapped this.

Between the lines: DEI policies that are viewed as less risky are changing, too, including employee resource groups, or ERGs, where people from the same background can connect.

• Companies have groups for women, parents, LGBTQ+ people, Black workers, etc. Firms are now making it clear that these groups are open to all.
• Even activities meant to celebrate certain groups are getting the heave-ho. One bank pulled back on programming for International Women's Day, the NYT reported last weekend.

The big picture: Anti-DEI sentiment was building, and companies were rolling back polices, before Trump took office.

• 45 companies have been attacked for their DEI policies over the past three years by opposition groups led by White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, and activist Edward Blum, according to a tally from Bloomberg.
• The trend intensified starting Jan. 20, as Trump issued the first of many executive orders on the topic.

DOGE-led mass firings of federal employees are tearing at the promise of job security that's come with government work for more than a century.

Why it matters: Millions of federal workers are now feeling the same kind of job anxiety more familiar to those in corporate America, including the tech sector, where Elon Musk's firing playbook is far more common.

What they're saying: "This is not the same government it was a month ago," a longtime federal employee told Axios, requesting anonymity because they've accepted the administration's "deferred resignation" offer and don't want to jeopardize it.

• "The mentality that federal workers have — that their jobs are protected — none of that exists anymore," they said.

Yes, but: The White House said it's within its rights to fire probationary workers, who don't have the same kinds of protections as longer-term employees.

• "The probationary period is a continuation of the job application process, not an entitlement for permanent employment," per policy guidelines shared by an administration official.
• "Agencies are taking independent action in line with the recent hiring freeze and the President's broader efforts to restructure and streamline the federal government," per the guidance, which notes agencies should focus on retaining the highest-performing employees.

Not all workers who've been fired were probationary, including those at USAID and terminated inspectors general.

• Others had previously received strong performance reviews but were told they were being fired for performance reasons anyway.

Zoom out: To understand why civil service jobs differ from private sector jobs, you need to go back to the 19th century, when the U.S. government was staffed by a "spoils system" in which people were hired based on connections or even because they paid for the job.

• After President Garfield was assassinated in 1881 by a man who was upset he didn't get a government gig, Congress enacted a civil service law called the Pendleton Act, to ensure folks were hired based on merit and skill.
• Today, most federal jobs are handled in this system. Only a few thousand positions are held by political appointees.

How it works: Government workers have a lot more job protections than those in the private sector.

• A provision in federal law states that government workers can't be discriminated against based on their political activity.
• Layoffs aren't supposed to be random, and there's a process that's supposed to determine who is fired first.
• Job listings must be posted, including those involving promotions, so everyone has a chance to apply and be judged by an impartial panel.
• Pay scales are public, and that's why for years gender and racial pay gaps in the federal government have been lower than in the private sector.

By the numbers: Federal workers also have far more union protections. 30% of public sector federal government employees are represented by unions, compared to 7% in the private sector, according to federal data.

• All of this "gives people a lot of security to work hard, do their jobs and not worry about playing personality politics," said David Super, a professor at Georgetown Law, whose research focuses on administrative law.

For the record: "President Trump returned to Washington with a mandate from the American people to bring about unprecedented change in our federal government to uproot waste, fraud, and abuse," White House principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields said in a statement.

• "This isn't easy to do in a broken system entrenched in bureaucracy and bloat, but it's a task long overdue."

The bottom line: Until recently, taking a job with the federal government meant accepting lower pay in order to reap the rewards of job security.

• Now the rewards haven't changed, but the risks are skyrocketing.

Are you a federal employee with a tip? You can reach Emily Peck confidentially on Signal @emilyrpeck.71.

As the nation marks a turbulent Black History Month, the economic state of Black America has much improved over the last few decades but is still nowhere near parity.

Why it matters: Economic hardships define people, families and communities for generations; breaking those cycles is the key to broader prosperity.

By the numbers: These are some of the most important indicators that tell the story of the Black community's financial progress and challenges.

• It's worth noting that some of this data is already becoming harder to come by, as the Trump administration purges various federal datasets that touch on issues like race.
• In some charts below, we look at the statistics solely for the Black community, while in others we compare to some or all races and ethnicities — in part to illustrate just how stark some of the gaps are.

The unemployment gap

The gap between the Black and general unemployment rates is less pronounced than in previous decades.

Yes, but: Disparities in the workforce abound from state to state and across regions of the countries. The gap is quite narrow in some places, like Delaware and Maryland, but in places like Kentucky, systemic racial barriers continue to hold people back.

The wealth gap

Black people consistently hold a tiny sliver of the overall wealth of the United States.

Why it matters: Non-Hispanic whites account for about 62% of Americans, but control 84% of the nation's wealth, per the Federal Reserve.

• Black Americans, who represent more than 12% of the population, own only 3.4% of the country's wealth, per the Federal Reserve. That's down sharply from 4.7% in 2017.

Follow the money: Black Americans had just $313 billion in stocks and mutual funds as of the third quarter of 2024, up a mere 3.4% in seven years.

• White Americans, by contrast, have $41 trillion of stock-market wealth — up 91% over the same time period.

The bottom line: On an absolute level, in nominal dollars, Black Americans have more wealth than ever — some $5.4 trillion in total. But their share of the total is not only tiny but also shrinking.

Business ownership

The share of U.S. businesses with Black owners has increased steadily in recent years, though it's still relatively small compared to the share for white or Hispanic owners.

By the numbers: The U.S. Census Bureau's Annual Business Survey shows 3.31% of all U.S. businesses were Black-owned in 2022, the last year for which data is available.

• That's an increase from 2.16% just five years ago.
• Over that time, Black-owned businesses grew 57%, far outpacing total business growth of just over 2%.

Workforce representation

The Black community is under-represented in the private sector, but does somewhat better when it comes to government employment.

Yes, but: That also means the Trump administration's efforts to shrink the federal workforce could disproportionately affect the community.

Banking access

Black households continue to be unbanked (in the traditional sense) at a higher rate than any other race or ethnicity, per FDIC data.

The big picture: While the rates have improved steadily, a double-digit percentage of Black households still don't have bank accounts.

Yes, but: A major caveat here is that the FDIC has a conservative view of what counts as being "banked" (a member of the household has to have a checking or savings account at a federally insured bank or credit union).

• Many people have alternative products, like Cash App, that offer many of the same features, albeit with fees and other limits.

Educational attainment

The share of all Bachelor's degrees awarded to Black people in recent years has held steady — even as other ethnic groups posted robust gains.

By the numbers: Of all Bachelor's degrees awarded in the 2021-2022 school year, 10.4% went to Black students, down from 10.8% in the 2012-2013 year.

• Over that same period, the share that went to Asian students rose to 8.9% from 7%, while for Hispanic students it rose to 17% from 10.5%.
• The share of degrees awarded to white students fell sharply, but Black students didn't participate in that offsetting growth.

Homeownership

There is a massive gap between homeownership rates for Black and white households, one that is not narrowing appreciably.

Why it matters: Homeownership is how most Americans build wealth and pass it on to the next generation.

Household income

The median household income for Black families has risen steadily over the last 20 years but is still nowhere near that of white households.

By the numbers: While the growth trends are roughly the same, the median household income for a Black family in 2023 was less than that for a white family in 2014.

Maternal mortality

Maternal mortality rates in the Black community were significantly higher than in other communities — and now they are increasing while rates in different groups are declining.

The big picture: The long-term costs of mothers dying in and near childbirth are devastating.

• The immediate financial impacts are immense — funerals, travel, etc.
• However, the long-term destructive impact on families and their ability to grow and thrive is far worse.

Medical debt

Those high rates of maternal mortality contribute, at least in part, to medical debt. Black adults carry such debts at much higher rates than any other ethnicity — roughly one in every eight, per Census data.

The big picture: Medical debt contributes in some way to about three in every five consumer bankruptcies and about half of all debt collections, leaving the Black community at much higher risk.

The Trump administration over the past two days has fired thousands of federal workers with jobs reportedly ranging from wildfire prevention to medical research.

Why it matters: A mass firing on this scale is unprecedented — and will likely vastly reshape the way the federal government works, or doesn't, for many years to come.

State of play: The White House has not released a tally yet of how many employees were fired and did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Axios.

• Agencies have been given until 8pm on Tuesday to fire probationary workers, according to a source familiar with the process, though they can make case-by-case exceptions.
• There are around 200,000 probationary workers — those who have been at agencies for less than one to two years — across the government.
• The firings come after around 75,000 workers accepted a deferred resignation offer engineered by Elon Musk's DOGE.

What's happening: Many of the firings are happening over email.

• Those being let go are mostly probationary workers or "term-limited" folks with set timeframes. But some more permanent civil servants are also out.
• Employees inside the IRS, CFPB and USDA told Axios on Friday either that they'd been fired, or colleagues had received termination notices and that more were expected.

The intrigue: All 18 career communications staffers at The Office of Personnel Management, effectively the government's HR department, were fired, an official at the American Federation of Government Employees told Axios. A source familiar with the decision also confirmed.

• Their positions were eliminated permanently, effectively wiping out the group's public relations team, similar to what Musk did at Twitter when he took over.
• OPM also fired dozens of its probationary employees Thursday afternoon on a group video call at around 2:30 p.m., the union official said.
• They were told they had to leave the building by 3, per the union official.

Inside the Department of Energy probationary employees received notices, viewed by Axios, that they were being let go on Thursday.

• "Per OPM instructions, DOE finds that your further employment would not be in the public interest," say the notices, viewed by Axios. "For this reason, you are being removed from your position with DOE and the federal civil service effective today," per the notices.

The Veterans Affairs department dismissed more than 1,000 employees on Thursday, the agency confirmed.

• CNN also reported 3,400 dismissals at the U.S. Forest Service and 2,000 at the Energy Department.
• STAT reported 5,200 workers inside the Department of Health and Human Services are also to be targeted for firings.

What they're saying: A spokesperson from OPM described the probationary period as "a continuation of the job application process" in a statement to Axios and said agencies were "taking independent action in light of the recent hiring freeze and in support of the President's broader efforts to restructure and streamline the federal government."

• A source familiar said OPM's guidance to agencies was that probationary employees should be fired, with only "mission critical" exceptions.
• "This administration has abused the probationary period to conduct a politically driven mass firing spree, targeting employees not because of performance, but because they were hired before Trump took office," said a statement from Everett Kelley, president of AFGE, a union that represents federal workers.

What to watch: The firings are already being challenged in court, and it's likely more suits are on the horizon.

The former chief technologist at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau warns that 12 years of critical records could be "irretrievably lost" in the DOGE purge of the agency, per an affidavit filed in federal court Friday.

Why it matters: The stability of the financial system is at stake, claims Erie Meyer, who served as chief technologist at the agency until last week.

• The data at risk includes consumer complaints and personal information, as well as data with details about big banks and other firms, including fintechs.
• "Based on my experience and expertise," the document says, "I believe that the deletion of the CFPB's databases and contracts would cause irreversible damage, not only to the Bureau's mission but also to consumer protection and the financial system as a whole. "

The big picture: The Trump administration effectively shuttered all work last weekend at the CFPB, which is responsible for keeping Americans safe from financial fraud.

• Then the layoffs began — so-called probationary workers were fired Tuesday.
• Thursday night "term-limited" employees, those with set years of service, received emails notifying them they were let go, too.
• "Public reporting and reports that I have received from within the Bureau reliably indicate that databases holding the CFPB's data will soon be deleted," Meyer says in the filing.

Zoom in: The data at risk tracks the financial behavior of financial institutions. Without it, the CFPB couldn't respond to threats in the overall financial system, Meyer alleges.

• "This could destabilize markets, allow bad actors to exploit weaknesses in financial institutions, and undermine public trust in the financial system."

Between the lines: The CFPB houses consumer complaints about a host of companies — including DOGE boss Elon Musk's Tesla.

• All of those complaints could be at risk of disappearing, based on Meyer's allegation.
• As of Friday afternoon, they were still accessible.

What's next: More firings are expected. The CFPB employed 1,600 people in 2023.

• "Over the past 24 hours, I have learned from many well informed Bureau officials that leadership intends to fire massive numbers of Bureau staff today and into the weekend, threatening the decimation of the Bureau." per Meyer's affidavit, dated Feb. 14.

For the record: Neither the White House nor the CFPB immediately responded to Axios' requests for comment.

Editor's Note: This story has been updated with details on the CFPB data.

The office is back: The share of people who reported working mostly in-person doubled in 2024 from the previous year, according to a survey from McKinsey released Friday morning.

Why it matters: With hiring slowing, and workers feeling stuck, employers are using their newly strengthened upper hand to finally get what they want: butts in seats.

Where it stands: "There is a perception among senior leaders that productivity is better accomplished in office," says Brooke Weddle, a senior partner at McKinsey. (Research paints a more complicated picture.)

• Executives are keen to return to office (RTO), Weddle says, noting that in one recent 24-hour period she heard from three different leaders at three companies about it.

The big picture: This survey of 8,426 employees across 15 industries was conducted last October; the RTO push has only intensified since then.

• On President Trump's first day in office he ordered federal employees back to in-person work.
• Earlier this week, Trump said: "I don't think you can work from home." People who work remotely "they're gonna play tennis. they're gonna play golf.... they're not working."
• On Thursday, the White House reportedly carved out an exception in its in-office policy — allowing federal employees with spouses who work for the military to continue to work remotely.

Context: When Amazon called workers back last September, the company opened the RTO floodgates, several observers tell Axios. "That turned a wave," says Weddle.

The intrigue: At a lot of workplaces, there's still not enough room for everyone. Amazon is still struggling to fit all its employees into available space, WSJ reports.

Reality check: We aren't all the way back to pre-2020 levels. Even with more RTO mandates there tends to be "wiggle room," says Weddle. "Most policies have some kind of flexibility built-in."

• For that reason, instead of asking if people were in-office or remote, McKinsey asked if people were "mostly" in-person or remote.
• Other recent studies reflect that asterisk. Average office occupancy on Fridays is just 36.7% of pre-pandemic levels, compared to around 63% on Tuesday, per recent data from Kastle.

The pause on the Trump administration's deferred resignation program was lifted by a federal judge on Wednesday.

Why it matters: It's a win for President Trump as he pushes to overhaul the civil service and make large-scale cuts to the federal workforce.

Driving the news: U.S. District Judge George A. O'Toole wrote in his ruling that a lawsuit from the union challenging the program could not succeed because they lack standing and his court doesn't have jurisdiction.

• O'Toole had issued a temporary restraining order against the Office of Personnel Management last week to pause the program.

Context: The buyout deal was sent to all federal workers last month in an email entitled "A fork in the road," encouraging them to resign.

• The deal, conceived with Elon Musk's input, is a part of the Trump administration's broader purge of the federal workforce.
• Trump signed an executive order this week requiring federal agencies to work with the Musk-led DOGE to make "large-scale" workforce reductions.

Where it stands: Some 75,000 workers have taken the deal, the Office of Personnel Management said Wednesday evening.

• The deadline for workers to respond to the buyout deal had been extended while this case was in play.
• It's now unclear what the deadline is for workers to respond to the "buyout" offer.
• OPM told Axios a new deadline will be announced shortly.

What they're saying: White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement the Boston buyout ruling "is the first of many legal wins" for Trump.

• "The Court dissolved the injunction due to a lack of standing. This goes to show that lawfare will not ultimately prevail over the will of 77 million Americans who supported President Trump and his priorities," she added.
• Office of Personnel Management spokesperson McLaurine Pinover said in a statement the OPM is "pleased the court has rejected a desperate effort" to strike down the Deferred Resignation Program.
• "This program was carefully designed, thoroughly vetted, and provides generous benefits so federal workers can plan for their futures," Pinover said.

The other side: "Today's ruling is a setback in the fight for dignity and fairness for public servants," said Everett Kelley, the president of the American Federation of Government Employees, one of the plaintiffs in the suit.

• "But it's not the end of that fight. AFGE's lawyers are evaluating the decision and assessing next steps," Kelley added in a statement.
• Kelley noted that Wednesday's decision does not address "the underlying lawfulness of the program."

Go deeper: Trump orders "large-scale" cuts to federal workforce, gives DOGE more power

Editor's note: This article has been updated with new details throughout.

The deadline for federal workers to resign and take the White House up on its deferred resignation offer has reportedly been delayed again, pending the decision of a federal judge in Boston.

Why it matters: It's a win for the union challenging the "Fork in the road" offer, but also gives federal employees more time to make a decision on the deal, which is part of the White House effort to slash the civil service.

Zoom in: In a hearing Monday, U.S. District Court Judge George O'Toole, a Bill Clinton appointee, said a temporary restraining order issued last week would stay in place until he makes a ruling on the merits, according to a court filing.

• It's not clear when that will happen.
• "We believe at the end of the day the judge in this case will side with us," said Everett Kelley, the president of the American Federation of Government Employees, one of the plaintiffs in the suit. "The way this program was rolled out was unlawful, and it needs to be done right."
• Agencies will continue to process resignations for the time being, a spokesperson from the Office of Personnel Management told Axios.

The big picture: So far more than 65,000 federal workers have indicated they plan on resigning, according to the Office for Personnel Management.

• That's about 3% of the 2.3 million federal workers.
• More recently, the IRS said workers critical to tax season couldn't take the offer until after tax season.

Catch up fast: The "buyout" deal went out last month to all federal workers in an email titled "A fork in the road."

• Federal workers have been reluctant to trust the offer, the contours of which have changed over the ensuing weeks.
• Lawyers and experts in administrative law said the deal was illegal on its face. The White House has firmly denied that and insisted the offer was fully legally valid.

Editor's note: This story has been updated with comment from the Office of Personnel Management and Everett Kelley.

The independent federal agency in charge of enforcing workplace anti-discrimination laws is caught in a bind under President Trump.

Why it matters: The White House crackdown — on transgender people; diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility; and the independence of federal agencies — all comes to a head at the the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

• The civil rights of Americans are at stake, according to advocates for workers and former EEOC officials.
• Staff are "in revolt" over concerns that fulfilling Trump's anti-DEI and anti-transgender orders would break the law, as the Wall Street Journal reported this week.

The big picture: The situation is a big change from the fairly hands-off way Trump treated the agency in his first term.

• In fact, it was a Trump Supreme Court appointee, Neil Gorsuch, who authored the landmark Bostock opinion, which found that discrimination against workers based on their sexual orientation or gender identity is prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the law that the EEOC enforces.

Where it stands: The agency is now treating gender identity cases differently, which will likely slow the process for those facing harassment at work.

• Any cases that "implicate" Trump's executive order on "Gender Ideology Extremism" are getting reviewed at EEOC headquarters, an agency spokesman told Axios in an email.
• Typically, cases are handled by local offices, and workers who bring charges to the EEOC are issued a "right to sue" letter to file a lawsuit in federal court.
• The agency said it will continue to issue these letters, but didn't offer more about what the headquarter review process would entail.
• The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the agency's new approach.

Also unclear: What happens to the cases brought by the agency that are already underway?

• These include one, filed on behalf of a housekeeper at a Holiday Inn Express in New York, who was fired after complaining about harassment from a supervisor who referred to them as "it," misgendered them, and made multiple offensive derogatory comments.
• Such harassment is a violation of the way the agency has interpreted the Supreme Court ruling, but that interpretation is opposed by EEOC acting chair Andrea Lucas.
• "Sex is binary (male and female) and immutable," Lucas, an outspoken DEI opponent, said in a statement last week about Trump's executive order.
• "It is not harassment to acknowledge these truths — or to use language like pronouns that flow from these realities, even repeatedly."

What they're saying: "The EEOC's mission is to prevent and remedy all forms of unlawful discrimination in the workplace," said Karla Gilbride, former general counsel at the agency, who was recently fired by Trump.

• "I'm concerned about the effect of President Trump's executive order on gender, and the way it's being implemented, is having on the agency's ability to serve that mission," Gilbride told Axios.

Context: Trump also fired two Democratic EEOC commissioners, including Jocelyn Samuels, who he placed in that role during his first administration. "I was shocked it happened to me," she told NPR this week.

• While it's not unusual for a new administration to replace an agency's general counsel, terminating commissioners with defined terms is highly unusual.
• The firings leave the agency without the quorum it needs to do much of its work, and the moves have been criticized as part of a broader attack on the independence of federal agencies.

What's next: Once new commissioners are in place, Lucas has said she'd like to update the guidelines around enforcing sex-based discrimination and roll back what she's called "the Biden administration's gender identity agenda."

• It's likely those changes will face court challenges.

The bottom line: The agency tasked with protecting the rights of transgender workers may no longer be focused on fulfilling that mission.

A federal judge on Thursday pushed back the deadline for government employees to decide whether or not to take the "buyout" offer from the Trump administration.

Why it matters: The deadline had been midnight Thursday, but there is now a restraining order until Monday.

Catch up quick: Federal employees have been uncertain about replying "resign" to the now-infamous "Fork in the road" email, as the details of the offer have changed since it was first sent out last week.

• Some union members had been told to wait for the court's ruling before making a decision.
• Earlier today workers received an email warning them, "There will NOT be an extension of this program."
• Bloomberg reported about 50,000 people have accepted the offer as of Thursday afternoon — roughly 2.5% of the federal workforce, compared to the 5% to 10% the White House was targeting.

What they're saying: "We are pleased the court temporarily paused this deadline while arguments are heard about the legality of the deferred resignation program," said Everett Kelley, the president of the American Federation of Government Employees, one of the plaintiffs, in a statement.

• "We continue to believe this program violates the law, and we will continue to aggressively defend our members' rights."
• An official from the Office of Personnel Management, which is running the process, told Axios the agency will continue processing resignations through Monday.

What's next: The administration appears poised to move from buyouts to a next phase, terminations.

• OPM sent a memo to federal agencies Thursday ordering them to submit data by March 7 on how they manage employee performance.
• The memo also orders them to identify any barriers to firing "poor performing employees who cannot or will not improve."

Editor's note: This story has been updated with reporting on the buyout's performance.

A coalition of labor groups filed suit Wednesday seeking to stop DOGE from coming to the Labor Department and gaining access to some of the world's most vital macroeconomic data.

Why it matters: This isn't the first lawsuit against Elon Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency, but appears to be one of the first filed as a preventative measure — instead of after some major action.

The big picture: The Labor Department houses an enormous amount of confidential data, and includes the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which produces important economic data, including inflation readings and market-critical employment statistics.

State of play: DOGE staff reportedly met with management at the Department of Labor earlier on Wednesday, raising fears that data, include sensitive information about worker complaints, was at risk.

• The lawsuit raises the possibility that worker complaints against Musk himself may be housed there.

Zoom in: The plaintiffs are asking the D.C. federal court for a temporary restraining order to keep DOGE out.

• The judge assigned to the suit set a hearing for Friday afternoon, and said the Labor Department has promised to keep DOGE from accessing its data until then.
• The hearing is scheduled for after the release of the monthly jobs report, which is due Friday morning.

What they're saying: "Absent this Court's intervention, DOGE will have access to highly sensitive data," the plaintiffs allege.

• They specifically cite the prospect of DOGE teams accessing BLS data, which is some of the most closely watched and market-sensitive macroeconomic information in the world.
• "A DOGE takeover of the type seen at other agencies could overturn over a century of the BLS's independence and turn it from a reliable source of data across the economy into a far less valuable political mouthpiece," they write.

The plaintiffs include the AFL-CIO, American Federation of Government Employees, Service Employees International Union and the progressive Economic Policy Institute.

• They collectively represent more than 4 million workers.
• The Department of Labor and acting secretary Vince Micone are the named defendants. A spokesman for the department was not immediately available for comment.

Editor's Note: This story has been updated with details on the next hearing in the case.

Some government employees who work for the Internal Revenue Service and choose to take the so-called "buyout" offered by the White House, will have to stick around through tax season 2025, according to an email viewed by Axios.

Why it matters: The processing of tax returns and refunds could be delayed if the IRS were to lose employees during the busy filing season.

The big picture: This means these IRS workers won't get the full eight months of paid leave that's been offered in the Fork in the Road, "deferred resignation" program cooked up, in part, by Elon Musk.

• Workers who have already replied "resign" to the note that went out last week will be contacted with instructions about when to return to work, per the email viewed by Axios.
• The deadline is Feb. 6 for workers to resign and take advantage of this offer, which would allow them to get paid through Sept. 30.

IRS employees to work past April 15 tax deadline

Zoom in: The email sent to all IRS employees on Wednesday says that "specific, critical filing season positions in Taxpayer Services, Information Technology and the Taxpayer Advocate Service are exempt from the [program] until May 15, 2025."

• Nearly half of the IRS' roughly 100,000 workers work in services or IT positions, per Bloomberg, which first reported on the email.
• Even those who choose to resign "are required to remain working through at least May 15, 2025, even if they respond to the [agency] email by the February 6 deadline."
• Those who already resigned "will be contacted with further instructions about when to return to work."

What they're saying: "Not only is this a clear case of bait-and-switch — they were originally told they would be paid to not work through Sept. 30 — but it proves that the terms of OPM's so-called offer are unreliable and cannot be trusted," said Doreen Greenwald, the president of the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents IRS workers, in a statement.

• "We do welcome the admission, however, that IRS employees are vital to the agency mission."
• The IRS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump's federal resignation program

State of play: The rollout of the White House deferred resignation has been rocky — with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), updating and changing its guidance, and issuing memos justifying its legality, over the past week.

• But from the start OPM, which functions like a human resource department for the federal government, has told agency heads that they had discretion in choosing which federal employees can participate in the buyout program.
• Yet the "buyout" offer went out to all federal employees — causing some confusion.
• Three unions representing federal workers filed a lawsuit Tuesday seeking to halt the deadline, calling it "unlawful and arbitrary."

What to watch: The concerns around resignations at the IRS underscores the fact that some critical government functions could be impacted by the buyout program.

More from Axios:

• The "fork in the road" has some very sharp prongs
• White House pushes back on criticism of "buyout" offer
• IRS Direct File still accepting tax returns after Musk post

An ex-member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), whom President Trump fired last month, filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging her dismissal and asking a federal court to reinstate her to the board.

Why it matters: The lawsuit could make its way to the Supreme Court. If it does, it could serve as a test case in a bigger fight over agency independence, with implications for not only the labor board but also the Federal Reserve, SEC and other federal bodies.

• The suit, filed by Gwynne Wilcox, comes as the agency is without the quorum it needs to fulfill its role enforcing the nation's labor laws — and protecting workers' rights.
• Wilcox said she was contemplating this lawsuit almost immediately after she was fired last week.
• The White House did not immediately respond Wednesday to Axios' request for comment on Wilcox's suit. The NLRB declined comment.

Driving the news: The lawsuit alleges Trump's firing is "unprecedented and illegal," and marks the first time in the 90-year history of the labor board that a president has removed a member.

• Under the federal law, board members are Senate approved to set terms. They can only be removed due to "neglect of duty or malfeasance."
• The lawsuit states Wilcox got an email from the administration firing her, which acknowledged this was not the case for her.
• However, the email said that limitation "is inconsistent with the vesting of the executive Power in the President."

Between the lines: Administrative law experts say Wilcox's firing "is clearly illegal under current law," Bloomberg reports — unless the Supreme Court overturns a nearly century-old precedent.

• That could wind up fast-tracking the case.

Zoom in: Wilcox was the only Black woman to ever serve at the labor board.

• She was confirmed to a five-year term by the Senate, set to expire in August 2028.
• Briefly, toward the end of the Biden administration she was appointed to chair the board — but once Trump took office he replaced her with Marvin Kaplan, as expected. Kaplan and Trump are named as defendants in the suit.
• Typically, in such a case, a former chair would continue to serve as a board member.

The big picture: Wilcox's firing is part of a broader purge of the independent federal agencies that enforce and safeguard workers' civil rights.

• A similar situation unfolded late last month at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Go deeper... Scoop: Sanders probing Trump's purge of labor officials

Editor's note: This story was updated with additional context.