Is it OK to cry at work?

8 hours ago Share Save Faarea Masud and Karen Hoggan Business reporters Share Save

House of Commons via PA Media

Pictures of a weepy Rachel Reeves dominated the newspaper front pages and TV news after her tearful appearance at Prime Minister’s Questions earlier this week. The markets were spooked so much by her emotional appearance that the cost of government borrowing immediately jumped and the pound took a dive. The sight of most of us crying in the workplace is unlikely to move financial markets, but does it matter if you do? Does it show weakness, or strength, or simply that you’re in touch with your emotions?

Anecdotally, it’s not unusual to have a bit of a sniffle at work. Several people got in touch with the BBC to say they had let it all out. Clara, 48, from Lancaster, said she had become emotional when she was a young graduate getting a “blasting”, and years later “in frustration”. “I’ve also cried after receiving bad news from home and left work immediately.” Emma, meanwhile, felt she had to keep her emotions under wraps because she worked in “a tough male-dominated environment” and would give herself a hard time for “showing emotion or ‘weakness’.” Although some research has suggested women are more likely than men to cry, plenty of men told us they had also shed tears in front of colleagues. Guy Clayton, a doctor, said he had often cried “with patients, colleagues and families over the years, when I’ve shared their sadness”. A 38-year-old from London who works in finance said he had become emotional at work when dealing with personal issues and felt it showed “a professional dedication” to still turn up.

‘Strength, not a liability’

So is crying a strength or a weakness? Executive coach and success mentor Shereen Hoban says it’s old-fashioned to think weeping at work is unacceptable. “We’ve moved beyond the old-school idea that professionalism means leaving emotion at the door,” she says. “In today’s world, emotional intelligence is a strength, not a liability.”

Career coach Georgia Blackburn says it’s not unusual for people at work to be upset, so firms need to know how to handle and support staff who are feeling a bit fragile. Ultimately, she says it will mean workers get more done. “An employer that truly listens, shows compassion and understanding, is so much more likely to keep their staff motivated and happier in the long run,” she says.

Amanda Amanda cried during an interview – and still got the job

That’s been the case for Amanda in Stockport who contacted the Jeremy Vine show on BBC Radio 2. She cried at a job interview at the University of Manchester 17 years ago, just after her father had been diagnosed with cancer. She got the job and is still there. “I cried every day for about nine months until my dad sadly passed away. It just made me realise what an amazing person I work for, and what an amazing place I work at, where that was OK.”

‘Bring back crying’

Getty Images Amy Powney thinks showing your emotions at work has become demonised

Fashion designer Amy Powney was having a bit of a rough time at the end of last year. She was having an “intense” time leaving a job, and it coincided with traumatic things happening in her life. Amy, who founded sustainable fashion brand Akyn earlier this year, also felt pressure to be a “poster child” for ethical fashion. “My to-do list at that time was: feed the kids, pick them up from school, sort that nursery thing out, design the next collection, make sure the staff are OK, sort out that VAT return… and then save the world,” she told BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour. “I went through this period of time where I just could not stop crying and I was doing it in public places, I was doing it on stage.” She thinks that showing emotion at work has been “demonised” and is unapologetic about breaking down. “I just think bring back the crying, bring back the emotions,” she says. “Women in leadership should be able to show their emotion. I think it’s a superpower. I think it’s a strength.”

Men v women, staff v bosses

But not everybody thinks that way. Some people are still a teensy bit judgemental, says Ann Francke, chief executive at the Chartered Management Institute (CMI). Women who weep are seen as “too emotional” while men who mope can be shamed for being soft and vulnerable, she says. Junior staff can get away with it more than their bosses, but this shouldn’t necessarily be the case, she adds. “When a senior leader cries, it can be seen as shocking or even inappropriate. But when handled with authenticity, it can also be powerful. It shows that leaders are human and care deeply about what they do,” she says.

But if you want to climb the greasy pole, it could be best to keep a stiff upper lip, at least in some organisations, says executive coach Shereen Hoban. Crying could affect your promotion prospects, she says. “Let’s be honest. There’s still a bias in some workplaces that sees composure as strength and emotion as instability.” But she says some organisations see things differently, and value leaders who are “real, self-aware, and able to navigate complexity, including their own emotions”. She adds that if you break down once at work it “won’t ruin your career”, and that what matters more is the bigger picture: “Your performance, your presence, and how you bounce back or move forward with intention,” she says.

What to do if you become tearful at work

None of this stopped the incident affecting the financial markets adversely – albeit briefly – which does beg the question of whether a Chancellor can show such raw emotion, particularly if it is going to impact the fortunes of the UK, and potentially the mortgage market, of course.

How big a concern is it that the woman in charge of the country’s finances has broken down in tears in public, with the impact that it temporarily had on the markets? Should she remain as Chancellor or could that cause continued uncertainty? Is it appropriate for someone to cry so openly in their workplace?

Mortgage adviser Michelle Lawson (pictured left), director of Lawson Financial, said the reasons behind Reeves’ upset, had a bearing on her position. “If it was work-related and it would affect her position or the markets, as a person – I don’t think the gender is relevant – in a highly influential role which was being televised, she should have got herself together first,” Lawson said. “If the matter is personally-related and she was dealt some pretty awful news, there is also an argument of the right time and place, in that she should have been pulled away from the public eye. Showing emotion is not a sign of weakness, although she isn’t really held in high regard with the public. I think it is important for people to show their feelings but try to remain professional.”

She continued: “I have been listening to DJ Spoony on BBC Radio 2, who has just got emotional on live radio talking about the death of Diego Jota. To a point, it shows we are all human and vulnerable at some time or another, and it sometimes just can’t be helped and can overspill. I don’t think Reeves should remain as Chancellor for other reasons, but not for Wednesday’s events solely.”

Being in government is an incredibly difficult, thankless job, points out Gerard Boon (pictured second from left), managing director of Boon Brokers. “It’s no surprise that ministers get emotional from time to time,” Boon commented. “In the Chancellor’s case, she claims the emotional outburst was in relation to a personal matter. As the outburst seems out of character, I think society should believe her in this instance and hold a sympathetic view. However, if these emotional outbursts continue, it would raise questions around Rachel Reeves’ mental toughness, which is vital for executing her important role in government.”

Employees at the Food and Drug Administration’s medical device center on Tuesday received notice that they would be cut amid massive layoffs at federal health agencies. The reductions included people who work in communications and records requests; regulatory programs and administrative services; and other functions, according to two FDA employees and one person who was laid off from the agency yesterday. All three spoke to MedTech Dive on the condition of anonymity.

The layoffs followed a weekend of uncertainty and stress for federal workers about their future job status. The Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that it would cut 10,000 full-time employees, including 3,500 FDA workers.

People working at the agency said it was an emotional day, with uncertainty about more cuts ahead.

“Everyone has very low morale. It’s just brutal,” said a product reviewer at the FDA. “People with 15-20 years of service are just gone.”

The layoffs began early Tuesday and were rolled out in a haphazard fashion. Some people at the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health first learned about the cuts when their badges to get into the office no longer worked, two staffers told MedTech Dive.

People who were laid off received emails from HHS, sometimes with incorrect information. A person who worked for CDRH’s Office of Communication, Information Disclosure, Training and Education said they received a notice that included incorrect performance review scores and contact information for an HHS equal employment opportunity representative who is no longer employed.

On Tuesday afternoon, CDRH leaders and some heads of offices held a meeting over Microsoft Teams to acknowledge the cuts. The meeting confirmed that the Office of Management and the communication office were the most heavily affected within CDRH, said two sources. Starlet Johnson, who leads the communication office, and Janelle Barth, who leads the management office, were included in the cuts, the people said.

“I thought the CDRH leadership actually led today,” the FDA product reviewer said. “It felt like the first time they just openly acknowledged what’s happened.”

It was “just goodbyes and crying,” said one CDRH employee.

Leaders were cut across the Office of Regulatory Programs, said the employee. The office, part of the FDA’s Office of Product Evaluation and Quality, manages regulatory programs for device review, recalls and adverse event reports, among other tasks.

The HHS and the FDA did not answer how many employees had been cut from the FDA. When asked to confirm the specific offices and number of CDRH staff that were cut, an HHS spokesperson directed MedTech Dive to a statement from Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

“This is a difficult moment for all of us at HHS. Our hearts go out to those who have lost their jobs,” Kennedy wrote on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. “But the reality is clear: what we’ve been doing isn’t working.”

Kennedy cited numbers that showed HHS’ budget has increased by 38% over the last four years, although that statement lacks key context. At CDRH, the agency’s budget increased in 2023 through user fee agreements, allowing the agency to collect more from device companies over five years in exchange for hiring more people. The agreement nearly doubled the amount the CDRH could collect from the previous deal in 2017.

The only statement on the FDA’s website Tuesday was an announcement that Martin Makary had been sworn in as FDA commissioner. Makary had told the Senate last month that he would undertake an “assessment” of agency staffing if confirmed, but did not comment on whether the cuts were appropriate.

Effect on device review

FDA staff and outside observers questioned how the cuts would affect the agency’s day-to-day functions. The HHS, when the layoffs were first announced, said it would not cut people who review medical devices or inspectors, although the agency did not clearly say how it would define who is involved in medical device reviews.

AdvaMed, a prominent medical device lobbying group that had criticized previous FDA cuts in February, took a more optimistic tone. CEO Scott Whitaker wrote in an emailed statement that AdvaMed agrees with Kennedy’s goals of efficiency and accountability.

“If it’s true that medical device reviewers and inspectors haven’t been affected, then that is good news,” Whitaker wrote. “Looking forward, our view is that any reduction in force should be accompanied by policy and regulatory improvements that encourage innovation in medtech.”

Madris Kinard, a former FDA analyst and CEO of Device Events, a company that collects and organizes recall and adverse event data, raised concerns about cuts to communications staff who review Freedom of Information Act requests. A CDRH employee also confirmed the FOIA cuts. The FDA receives protected health information in adverse event reports, which describe injuries, malfunctions or deaths associated with medical devices. The CDRH has to redact portions of those reports to remove physician or hospital names.

“Without this staff,” Kinard wrote in an email, “the safety data cannot be released each month.”

Jason Brooke, a medical device attorney and managing member at Brooke & Associates, said clients are asking what the cuts will mean for them.

“My response has been that there is no scenario where this makes it easier or faster to get products to market,” Brooke said. “At the end of the day, patients will suffer as a result.”

Brooke added that he has heard a common refrain from the people that remain at the agency: “I don’t know how we move forward after this.”

This week, UK chancellor Rachel Reeves made headlines across the world — not for a policy announcement, but for wiping away tears in the House of Commons.

Immediately, speculation as to why swirled, with some hypothesising that it had to do with an altercation between her and the lower house speaker.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said it had “nothing to do with politics” and Reeves’ spokesperson said it was a “personal matter”.

It’s not the first time a political figure’s tears have made headlines.

Speculation about the cause of UK chancellor Rachel Reeves’ tears in parliament could reveal larger attitudes about crying in the workplace. Source: AAP / House of Commons/UK Parliament Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has cried in public several times. Julia Gillard teared up during the launch of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and Kevin Rudd cried when resigning from parliament.

Bob Hawke, Malcolm Fraser and Malcolm Turnbull have also all cried on the job.

But in 2025, we still seem unsure how to feel about tears, especially if they’re at work.

“There’s still an outdated expectation that leaders must be strong — and that strong means unemotional,” psychologist Carly Dober told SBS News.

“But crying is one of the body’s strongest ways of self-soothing. It’s neutral. It helps us recalibrate.”

READ MORE Feeling depleted by work? This is how Melanie beat burnout without quitting her job

The taboo of tears

Despite how common it is, crying at work still carries a stigma.

“It tends to be seen as a taboo thing to do, but it is quite common,” says UTS associate professor Robyn Johns, who specialises in human resources, industrial relations and occupational stress.

“It often happens when people feel powerless, stressed, frustrated or in conflict at work.”

Dober agrees — and says suppressing those emotional reactions comes at a cost.

“Emotional suppression is really taxing on us and quite harmful,” she says. “We’re not machines. We are emotional and social individuals.”

She says crying isn’t a breakdown, but rather a biologically useful tool for emotional regulation.

“When we cry, amazing chemicals are released … endorphins that help us emotionally recalibrate.”

Does crying at work damage your reputation? That depends

Both experts say the way tears are received at work depends heavily on the context, including your industry, workplace culture, job title, and even your gender.

“Whether it’s accepted really depends on the workplace and what the norms are within that environment or profession,” Johns says.

In fields that require emotional labour — like teaching, social work or nursing — crying is more likely to be understood as part of burnout or compassion fatigue.

READ MORE Fewer Australian women are working part-time. These are the jobs they want instead

“Burnout often includes emotional exhaustion, and in those professions, we do see crying more frequently as part of that process,” Johns says.

On the other hand, crying in high-pressure, white-collar workplaces can be seen as a big no-no.

“It might be seen as a sign of weakness and impact your image in a negative way,” she says.

The gender gap

Both experts say reactions to crying at work are still shaped by outdated — and deeply gendered — assumptions.

“Typically, what we’ve seen within the gender power dynamics is that women are seen to be weak when they’re crying,” Johns says.

“Men are perceived to be more genuine or courageous or stronger or authentic in being able to display their emotions.

“Whereas a lot of research sees that women are interpreted to be losing control or that they don’t have the same emotional intelligence to be able to hold those more senior level roles … it can be quite damaging to their careers.”

“Women can use their brains and they can self-soothe by crying,” Dober added.

“One doesn’t cancel the other out.”

Johns suggests shifting focus away from gender and back to the circumstances of workplace crying.

“Ask instead: what are the triggers — regardless of gender — that have brought somebody to this state?”

Making space for emotion at work

Despite the lingering stigma, both experts say workplaces are starting to change — slowly.

Approximately 80 per cent of Australia’s top 500 companies have an employee assistance program (EAP) in place, which aims to support employee wellbeing and provide mental health support, according to NSW government data from 2022.

But support, Johns says, also needs to be cultural, not just procedural.

“What we don’t want is people who have these emotions to feel like they’ve absolutely got to bottle them up, otherwise it’s going to be a detriment to them in their career,” she said. “Because that’s also not healthy.”

READ MORE Teaching was my dream job but I was forced to quit

Dober says workplace leaders play a key role in shaping emotional norms.

“Culture starts at the top,” she says. “If you say it’s okay to cry but penalise people when they do, that’s not psychologically safe.”

Both agree it’s time to stop treating crying as weakness.

“If you see someone cry at work, check your bias,” Dober says. “Crying is neutral. It’s a body’s way of self-soothing.”

B en Vizzachero had his dream job, working as a wildlife biologist with the Los Padres National ­Forest in California. He was moving up the ladder, had recently received a positive performance review, and was “making the world a better place,” he says.

Yet, over Presidents’ Day weekend in February, Donald Trump’s administration told Vizzachero he was being let go for his “performance.” Vizzachero was one of many thousands of “probationary” federal workers who were baselessly fired by Elon Musk and his so-called Department of Government Efficiency as part of Trump’s effort to purge the federal workforce and make it more MAGA.

It was crushing. “My job is my identity,” Vizzachero says. “How I’ve defined myself since I was five years old is that I love birds and bird-watching.” Talking with Rolling Stone in March, following his firing, he wondered what would happen to his health insurance and whether he would need to move in with his parents.

When a Democratic lawmaker invited Vizzachero as a guest to Trump’s joint address to Congress in March, he found himself seated near Musk. He took the opportunity to confront the world’s richest man. According to Vizzachero, he described his job to Musk and asked: “Am I waste?”

He says Musk, “with a very condescending smirk,” hit him with a line from the 1999 movie Office Space: “What would you say you do here?”

It was a dubious callback to the scene in which a pair of management consultants interview a worker and force him to justify his job before he’s fired. Like countless Wall Street traders who took the wrong lesson from Gordon Gekko’s “greed is good” speech, Musk missed the point of Office Space: that corporate culture is dehumanizing, and bosses like him are odious cretins.

Soon after Trump’s and Republicans’ 2024 wins, which Musk supported with $290 million in political spending, the Tesla CEO publicly mused about using this line from Office Space on federal workers. He posted it in November on X, the social media platform he owns, with a laugh-crying emoji, resharing his earlier post of an AI-generated image in which he’s seated at a conference table behind a placard that reads “DOGE.” Two weeks later, Musk announced, “I rewatched Office Space tonight for the 5th time to prepare for @DOGE!” The billionaire reportedly had a DOGE T-shirt made, emblazoned with his favorite line. And one weekend in February, Musk threatened to fire every federal worker who failed to respond to an email asking them, “What did you do last week?” Editor’s picks

Musk and the White House did not respond to Rolling Stone’s request for comment.

“The American people are saying, you know what, Elon Musk? We believe you to be a liar.” Everett Kelley

With DOGE, Musk has gleefully banished tens of thousands of federal employees, canceled lifesaving aid, and repeatedly threatened America’s safety-net programs, all as part of a purported hunt for waste, fraud, and abuse. He’s governed as an out-of-touch corporate villain, laughing about this carnage while partying, posting, delivering big payments to voters (although the amounts mean virtually nothing to him), and cashing in on new contracts and business opportunities — sometimes appearing high out of his mind. Even administration officials and Trump loyalists on Capitol Hill joke about the latest outrages of “Prime Minister Musk.” At every turn in his crusade of destruction, the Tesla and SpaceX CEO has dared the courts and a weak Democratic opposition to stop him.

But it didn’t take long for ordinary Americans to get pissed off, with protests against DOGE, Musk, and his companies erupting nationwide. “The American people are saying, you know what, Elon Musk?” says Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, a federal labor union that has brought legal challenges against the Trump administration on behalf of the more than 820,000 workers across government agencies it represents. “We’re not buying what you’re selling. We believe you to be a liar.”

Organizers have mounted a “Tesla Takedown” campaign, with tens of thousands around the globe showing up at dealerships to condemn DOGE, according to the group. They have encouraged Tesla owners to sell their cars and stockholders to dump their shares, since much of Musk’s wealth comes from his stake in the electric-vehicle manufacturer. Related Content

“People have asked, ‘What is DOGE?’ ” says a retiree at an anti-Tesla protest in Los Angeles in March, explaining that she and her husband are trying to “educate people” about the harm Musk’s pet project is causing. Passing motorists honk in support of the approximately 25 people gathered at a Tesla center despite the rain. Some hold signs denouncing Musk as a Nazi (he has denied any association with Nazism), while another poster at the rally simply reads: “Not Sure About This Elon Guy.”

“There is a growing movement to divest, Tesla stock is in a precipitous decline,” says actor and writer Alex Winter, who launched Tesla Takedown with other activists in ­February. “Things are moving in the right direction.”

‘Crazy Uncle Elon’

Prior to Trump’s inauguration, observers weren’t sure how seriously to take the idea of a Musk-led government-efficiency commission, but the billionaire and DOGE have been at the vanguard of Trump’s shockingly lawless second administration.

Musk has spearheaded the president’s purge of the federal workforce and his efforts to consolidate information and power over federal funds — despite never being elected, appointed, or confirmed to hold such a pivotal role. Musk is technically a “special government employee,” a designation that allowed him to bypass a Senate confirmation process and avoid publicly reporting his financial holdings.

DOGE was created by renaming the U.S. Digital Service and moving it under the executive office in an apparent bid to circumvent public-record laws. The ethics watchdog American Oversight has sued to force the group to comply with those laws and preserve materials subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. “The public deserves to know the full extent of the damage,” said interim Executive Director Chioma Chukwu in a statement on an April court order requiring DOGE to fulfill this legal obligation.

Trump and Musk have tried to grant the new office expansive authorities never envisioned by Congress, including the ability to “impound,” or freeze, funds appropriated by lawmakers. Experts say the arrangement is unconstitutional on several levels — as are DOGE’s mass firings and its attempts to shutter or pause the work of whole government agencies. A lawsuit brought by personnel of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) laid out many of these arguments, contending that “Musk has acted as an officer of the United States without having been duly appointed to such a role,” and that DOGE “acted to eliminate USAID, a federal agency created by statute, where only Congress may do so.” A federal judge in Maryland agreed, finding that Musk and DOGE likely violated the Constitution as they dismantled the office. Another judge ordered the Trump administration to rehire thousands of probationary employees terminated by DOGE. (As of publication, the legal battle is ongoing.)

Vizzachero, the wildlife biologist, was among those rehired. The administration is still moving ahead with even larger mass firings.

“I am become meme. There’s living the dream, and living the meme, and that’s what’s happening.” Elon Musk

Musk and his lieutenants — many pulled from his own companies, others young techie college dropouts lacking in government experience — have demanded unprecedented access to sensitive personal information and government payment systems, leading to still more legal challenges. Federal judges have found that Trump’s administration likely violated privacy and administrative laws when it gave DOGE sweeping access to personal, private data held by the Social Security Administration, the Treasury Department, and the Education Department. Regardless, DOGE has continued to operate with the same playbook Musk used after acquiring Twitter, showing a zeal for speedy terminations and little regard for how departments function.

Throughout the chaos and confusion of Trump’s return to power, Musk also strove to cultivate the image he’s long maintained as a workhorse, showman, and expert in varied fields. He reportedly told friends he was sleeping at DOGE offices, rehashing claims he previously made about sleeping on a Tesla factory floor. He’s continually posted grandiose and often inaccurate estimates of how much money DOGE has saved.

And he seemed to relish his role as an all-powerful agitator. Musk began regularly smearing his enemies as “retards” on X and targeting judges who ruled against the administration or blocked DOGE’s incursions. He grew bold enough to describe Social Security, long considered untouchable, as “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time.”

Onstage at Trump’s post-inauguration event, Musk threw a straight-armed salute to the crowd, then responded to the ensuing backlash with a series of puns on names of high-ranking Nazis from Adolf Hitler’s inner circle. Speaking virtually to the far-right German political party Alternative für Deutschland, Musk argued that Germany had placed “too much of a focus on past guilt.”

At the 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference in February, Musk waved around a chain saw he said would slice through “bureaucracy” — this on the same day that his former partner Grimes publicly begged him on X to respond to her about a medical crisis experienced by one of their three children.

“I am become meme,” he said onstage. “I’m living the meme. You know, it’s like, there’s living the dream, and there’s living the meme, and that’s pretty much what’s happening.”

The bizarre CPAC appearance prompted speculation about Musk’s state of mind and recreational drug use, as he was wearing sunglasses inside and had difficulty stringing sentences together. People close to Musk have told The Wall Street Journal they have known him to use illegal drugs, including LSD, cocaine, Ecstasy, and mushrooms — a source of concern for some of the board members over­seeing his companies. (Musk has denied using illegal drugs, though he has spoken about his use of prescription ketamine, a dissociative anesthetic.)

Some senior Trump ad­ministration officials and Cabinet members have found themselves deeply annoyed by Musk. Sec­retary of State Marco Rubio, three people fa­miliar with the matter say, hasn’t hidden his ­disdain for Musk, with some State Department officials nicknaming the Tesla billionaire “Crazy Uncle Elon,” two of those sources tell Rolling Stone.

“I have been in the same room with Elon, and he always tries to be funny. And he’s not funny. Like, at all,” says a senior Trump administration official. “He makes these jokes and little asides and smiles and then looks almost hurt if you don’t lap up his humor. I keep using the word ‘annoying’; a lot of people who have to deal with him do. But the word doesn’t do the situation justice. Elon just thinks he’s smarter than everyone else in the room and acts like it, even when it’s clear he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”

Musk has gnawed at the patience of an array of high-­ranking administration officials, to the point that — according to this official and two others — Trump lieutenants have walked out of meetings and earnestly asked one another if they thought Musk was high. Administration officials joked to one another about subjecting Musk to mandatory drug testing, which Musk himself has said would be a “great idea” for federal employees. (A lawyer for Musk has said he’s “regularly and randomly drug-tested at SpaceX and has never failed a test.”)

“Talking to the guy is sometimes like listening to really rusty nails on a chalkboard,” says the senior Trump administration official, who adds that Musk is not much of a team player, either. “He’s just the most irritating person I’ve ever had to deal with, and that is saying something.”

‘Why Do These Fucking Kids Know This?’

With Trump’s blessing, Musk has engineered a climate of fear that has infected nearly every corner of the U.S. executive branch. When DOGE’s “nerd army” has moved to take over federal agencies, if their demands are not immediately met, Musk’s minions have snapped at senior government officials: “Do I need to call Elon?”

The emails that Musk has had sent to federal employees have been so intentionally dickish that several have produced an avalanche of what one Trump administration official called “very rude” pranks and replies. Some of these crass responses include — per messages reviewed by Rolling Stone — graphic sexual images, including content involving urine and feces.

“I know Elon probably won’t see it, but I hope he sees it,” says one now-former federal employee, who says they replied to one such email with an image of a human butthole.

Musk is apparently amused by the unrest. Aside from his public memeing, when he has privately messaged associates and confidants about reports from federal staffers about how their lives have been wrecked, the Tesla CEO has been known to react with laugh-crying emojis, according to a source with direct knowledge of the matter.

At the Social Security Administration, Musk and DOGE appear to be creating a ticking time bomb — making big cuts and changes that may prevent some recipients from getting the benefits they are owed.

The tech oligarch has repeatedly warned that millions of Americans over the age of 100 are receiving benefits — a flagrant misrepresentation of agency data. Trump has run with this falsehood, too, even as his acting Social Security commissioner has acknowledged that these people “are not necessarily receiving benefits.”

Musk has claimed there are “extreme levels of fraud” in Social Security — though he and DOGE haven’t provided any evidence. He’s argued, without basis, that hundreds of billions in fraud per year are going to undocumented immigrants from entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

The constant griping about entitlements is making an impact: When people lose their Social Security benefits, they are blaming Musk and DOGE.

Two administration officials and another Trump adviser tell Rolling Stone that when Musk has publicly decried Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme,” some close to Trump have tried to diplomatically remind Musk that this could be damaging politically.

“He’s the most irritating person I’ve ever had to deal with, and that’s saying something.” Senior Trump Administration Official

“We like winning elections, and you may have noticed that a lot of our voters are elderly,” the Trump adviser notes. The complaint from Trumpland brass about Musk’s inability to absorb or entertain new information is a common one.

According to the Trump adviser and an administration official, the DOGE captain has stubbornly responded with comments like, “It is a Ponzi scheme, though.” (It is not.)

As Musk and his minions claim they’re hunting for wasteful spending, the tech mogul is vying for new contracts at agencies that ­regulate his many business interests — a ­situation that poses obvious conflicts of interest. The Trump White House has asserted that Musk can police his own conflicts, and excuse himself from DOGE’s work overseeing certain contracts if he believes it’s necessary.

As part of their purge, Musk and DOGE fired hundreds of probationary employees at the Federal Aviation Administration, which last year proposed fining Musk’s SpaceX for regulatory and safety violations. Musk also pressured the last FAA administrator to resign, leaving it without leadership when an Army helicopter and commercial jet collided over the Potomac River near D.C. in January, killing 67 people.

The agency has started utilizing ­Starlink, Musk’s satellite internet service, to help upgrade the systems it uses to manage America’s airspace. Musk has tried to spin this as charity, posting that “Starlink terminals are being sent at NO COST to the taxpayer on an emergency basis to restore air-traffic-control connectivity.” However, as Rolling Stone has reported, FAA officials quietly directed staff to quickly locate tens of millions of dollars to fund a Starlink deal.

The New York Times separately reported in March that Starlink is now being used on the White House campus, despite security concerns. Trump’s Department of Defense just awarded SpaceX billions more in contracts to put sensitive military satellites in space. DOGE is reportedly using Musk’s Grok AI chatbot liberally as it slashes the government.

Two sources with knowledge of the matter tell Rolling Stone that Musk’s DOGE staffers have grilled DOD employees about the Golden Dome project, Trump’s fantastical proposal to build a space-based missile-defense system to protect the entire United States — an idea ready-made for Starlink. Their questions were so specific that Pentagon officials wondered if the DOGE staff had access to highly sensitive and guarded information.

“Why do these fucking kids know this?” is how one of the sources describes their bewilderment at the time.

With DOGE, Musk has effectively infiltrated agencies that are supposed to oversee his businesses. This situation creates risk, experts say — as officials may not feel like they can scrutinize Musk’s businesses too closely. Case in point: In late February, the FAA cleared SpaceX to launch another unmanned test flight of its Starship rocket, a month after one exploded. Starship exploded again mid­air, raining debris over Florida and the Caribbean and disrupting nearly 500 flights.

The FAA’s probe of the first explosion concluded that the probable cause was “stronger than anticipated vibrations during flight.” The agency noted that SpaceX had “implemented corrective actions” prior to launching the second rocket, which exploded too.

‘Nobody Elected’ Musk

Musk’s unprecedented attack on the government has not gone without answer from average Americans, who have mobilized mass protests focused on DOGE and Tesla. Republican lawmakers holding town-hall events have had constituents show up to berate them over Musk, booing his name and denouncing his cuts. By early March, House Speaker Mike Johnson was telling his GOP colleagues to skip such events.

Demonstrations, meanwhile, spilled into the streets. “DOGE is illegitimate. Congress has not authorized them,” a federal worker at a March protest on the National Mall told Rolling Stone. The action saw significant support from veterans due to DOGE’s cuts to the Department of Veterans Affairs. “Fuck Musk,” says another attendee, whose relative is a government contract worker. She notes that “nobody elected” Musk.

As Musk’s DOGE continues to slash jobs, a protest movement against him is brewing. Jim WEST/REPORT DIGITAL-REA/Redux

Meanwhile, a wave of vandalism — unconnected to the peaceful Tesla Takedown campaign — has seen Tesla dealerships, vehicles, and chargers spray-painted, burned, and damaged by gunfire, though there have been no injuries as yet. Musk has baselessly declared that the protests are financed by wealthy liberals and that the vandalism is “coordinated,” though the FBI has said there is no evidence of this.

The White House and Trump law-enforcement officials have moved to crack down on Tesla vandals. At a Tesla showcase that Trump held on the White House driveway with Musk, the president said the attackers should be considered domestic terrorists. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that three individuals suspected of carrying out arson attacks on Tesla properties were facing sentences of up to 20 years. The FBI launched a task force to look at anti-Tesla violence.

Trump also suggested that individuals arrested for these crimes should be sent to prison in El Salvador.

What’s $1 Million?

Amid rising public anger about his role and influence, Musk held a town hall in late March in Green Bay, Wisconsin. More than 1,000 supporters joined him, as hundreds protested outside in the ice-cold rain.

The protesters were there to vent their anger about Musk’s attempts to buy a state Supreme Court seat. The tech billionaire — through his Super PAC, America PAC — had been offering voters $100 to sign a petition decrying so-called activist judges. Only petition signers could attend the town hall. Musk had announced he would give away checks for $1 million to two event attendees.

One protester, holding a sign that said “X-LAX needed to eliminate Musk,” told Rolling Stone that Musk had “no business in Wisconsin trying to influence votes.” Another held a sign declaring, “Packer fans don’t like Nazis,” with a picture of Musk’s straight-armed salute.

Inside, Musk appeared onstage donning a Packers-style cheesehead hat before signing it and throwing it into the crowd.

Shortly afterward, he brought two winners out to collect the $1 million checks. He admitted to the audience that the point of them is “just to get attention.” He laughed about how paying voters this way “causes the legacy media to kind of lose their minds.”

While $1 million would be a life-changing sum for most people, it means shockingly little to a man who was reportedly worth $316 billion at the end of March. One of these checks is equivalent to just over 60 cents for him, when you compare his net worth with that of the median American. (The $290 million that Musk spent to elect Trump and Republicans was equivalent to roughly $214 for him at the time — less than an average family’s weekly grocery bill.)

“I would thank him for radicalizing me. I had never attended a protest until I was fired.” Ben Vizzachero

At his town hall, Musk — an immigrant — launched into a tirade about noncitizens receiving Social Security numbers, standing in front of a chart purporting to show a big spike under Democrats. In reality, legal immigrants are given Social Security numbers so they can pay taxes; this process was in fact made automatic during Trump’s first term. The crowd gasped as Musk gave them the false impression that DOGE had finally found real fraud in Social Security.

When Musk was interrupted by protesters, he joked that they were operatives funded by Democratic mega-donor George Soros — yes, inside the event filled with people he was paying $100 to sign his petition, where he also gave away $2 million.

Throughout the night, Musk argued that the Wisconsin Supreme Court election would have major implications not just for the state or the country, but possibly the world — if Democrats won, he argued, Republicans could lose two congressional seats.

Two days later, Wisconsin voters convincingly rejected Musk’s candidate, Brad Schimel, by 10 points. The election was a referendum on Musk — and he lost big.

Dr. Kristin Lyerly, a Wisconsin OB-GYN who serves on the board for the Committee to Protect Health Care and campaigned against Schimel, tells Rolling Stone, “Authenticity is incredibly important to Wisconsinites, and that is what Elon Musk completely lacked: any sense of authenticity.”

After Musk’s epic fail, word trickled out that he could soon leave the Trump administration. It wasn’t a surprise — special government employees are supposed to serve for 130 days or less per year. Musk’s effect on the government and its workers will linger.

On April 5, as a wave of “Hands Off!” protests coalesced against Trump and Musk in every state and cities around the world, Rolling Stone spoke again with Vizzachero. He was getting ready to speak at one of these rallies in California. (Now that he’s been rehired, he says, “the statements that I’m making to you are my personal opinions.”)

He reads his planned speech over the phone. He talks about how environmental and conservation laws brought back the bald eagle and the peregrine falcon, and restored America’s public lands. “The Trump administration wants to exploit and abuse our public lands so that they can make billionaires like Elon Musk even richer,” he says.

It’s been a month since his run-in with Musk. He says he’s “kind of grateful.”

If he saw Musk again now, Vizzachero says, “I would thank him for radicalizing me, because I had actually never attended a protest until a week after I got fired. I spent a long time sitting on the sidelines thinking there’s so much bad stuff happening. He gave me the push that I needed to use my voice to speak up and speak out.”