Trigger warning (unless such things become illegal): This is going to talk about coercive control techniques that are common to domestic abuse, broader out group persecution, and current federal employee intimidation tactics.

If federal employees are feeling traumatized right now, Russell Vought, the new head of the office of management and budget (OMB), probably has something to do with it.

“We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected,” Vought said in a video revealed by ProPublica and the research group Documented in October. “When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work, because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. We want their funding to be shut down … We want to put them in trauma.”

Alice Herman Mon 10 Feb 2025 11.00 GMT - The Guardian

The Ultimatum

Over the weekend all federal employees were issued a demand via the email address hr@opm.gov. They were told to provide no more than 5 bullet points detailing what they achieved during the preceding week.

Little other substantial context was provided and confusion reigned.

Some department heads (mainly new Trump appointees at the FBI, Department of Justice, and the Pentagon), came out to say that staff should not reply (Reuters reporting on that on 23rd February). Stressing that the agencies would co-ordinate a response based on their own internal procedures for staff appraisal.

That push back and apparent contradiction to Musk's edict is being reported by some (Wired here) as a sign of developing schisms between Musk and Trump.

The below screenshots suggest Mr Musk is wedded to the tactic. Mainly to paint non-respondents as ghost employees, incompetent, or scheming.

What do I mean by coercive control?

Coercive control is not just a series of isolated incidents, but rather an ongoing strategy of intimidation, isolation, and control. Sometimes characterised by a feeling that there is no stable set of rules to follow that will keep you safe, because benchmarks for acceptable behaviour will change to suit situational purposes. The latter has been referred to as rule unpredictability or strategic inconsistency.

Formal Definitions

According to Evan Stark, viewed as pioneering the concept:

Coercive control entails a pattern of behaviour that achieves compliance or control through the assault on a person's human rights of liberty (to freely determine one's actions) and dignity (to be recognized as a moral equal). (Stark, 2007, Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life).

Section 76 of the UK Serious Crime Act 2015, as referenced in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 defines controlling or coercive behaviour as:

"Behaviour that occurs repeatedly or continuously, to a person with whom the perpetrator is personally connected, that has a serious effect on the victim, and that the perpetrator knows or ought to know will have a serious effect on the victim."

Women's Aid, a leading domestic abuse charity, defines it as:

"An act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten their victim... designed to make a person dependent by isolating them from support, exploiting them, depriving them of independence and regulating their everyday behaviour." (Women's Aid, "What is coercive control?", 2023)

Key Elements

Summarising sources including Michael P. Johnson (2008, A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence) and Cynthia K. Sanders (2015, Economic Abuse in the Lives of Women Abused by an Intimate Partner), the patterns typically include:

1. Isolation - Restricting social connections and support networks
2. Monitoring - Surveillance of activities, communications, and movements
3. Gaslighting - Manipulating someone into questioning their reality or sanity
4. Intimidation - Creating fear through threats, looks, actions, or property destruction
5. Deprivation - Withholding basic needs or access to resources
6. Regulation - Controlling daily activities and behaviour through often inconsistent rules and demands
7. Degradation - Humiliating or demeaning behaviours to reduce self-worth
8. Exploitation - Using the victim for advantage or profit

While originally conceptualised in context of intimate partner relationships, these patterns have been recognised in institutional settings, workplace environments, and broader societal structures according to Marianne Hester and Nicole Westmarland (2005, Tackling Domestic Violence: Effective Interventions and Approaches).

You may not agree, but I see several coercive control tactics here that mirror those. Absolutely aligned with the stated intent from Vought:

Identifiable Tactics

1. Manufactured Crisis and Urgency - Sudden weekend emails with tight deadlines (Monday at 11:59 pm) create artificial pressure and prevent thoughtful responses or proper consultation.
2. Deliberate Confusion - Limited context provided about how information would be used, creating uncertainty and anxiety. The contradiction between agency heads saying "don't respond" while Musk threatened termination for non-response leaves employees in an impossible position.
3. Public Humiliation - Using social media to label federal workers as incompetent, showing "contempt," and failing an "inane test," mirrors how abusers often publicly demean their targets to erode their self-worth.
4. Technological Surveillance - The use of AI systems to evaluate responses introduces an opaque, unpredictable evaluation mechanism that employees cannot appeal or properly understand.
5. Moving Goalposts - Initially claiming non-response equals resignation, then offering "another chance," demonstrates how compliance requirements can shift unpredictably.
6. Isolation Tactics - Creating division between agencies, with some directing employees not to respond while others demanded compliance, contradictory messaging via different media fractures support networks and solidarity.
7. Trauma by Design - Vought's explicit statement about wanting bureaucrats to be "traumatically affected" and "not want to go to work" reveals that psychological distress is not an unintended consequence but rather an intentional strategy.
8. Leveraging Precedent - Using the same "Fork in the Road" email subject line at Twitter/X before mass firings suggests to knowledgeable observers that similar outcomes are intended and any reprieve will only be temporary.
9. Information Harvesting - Collecting detailed work information across agencies creates vulnerability that could later be weaponised in targeted terminations.
10. False Choices - Framing the situation as "just reply with five bullet points" versus "be considered resigned" presents a manipulated choice that obscures more reasonable alternatives.

These tactics, particularly when deployed by those with significant institutional power against employees with little means to push back, create precisely the environment of fear and instability that Vought sought.

Trump targets DEI and civil service protections, striking fear in some federal workers | CNN Politics

President Donald Trump is targeting federal employees who focus on diversity, equity and inclusion and career policy staffers as he follows through on campaign promises to exert more control over the federal bureaucracy.

CNNTami Luhby

A nominal DEIA, waste, fraud, and anti-woke focus

That extends far beyond stated goals of government efficiency or bureaucratic streamlining. Looking more closely at both the methods and outcomes, a you see a pattern of work to create fear and compliance.

The superficial framing of these efforts as targeting waste and fraud, or opposing "woke" initiatives obscures what multiple sources suggest is a more fundamental aim: dismantling worker protections and creating a workforce that prioritises loyalty over expertise or independent judgment. Intentions that can hardly be characterised as good-faith efforts at governmental reform.

According to CNN reporting last year "Just days into his new administration [Trump will] go after programs he's long attacked and civil servants whom he feels blocked some of his key initiatives in his first term." This strategy, referencing Project 2025, was likely to include multiple simultaneous actions:

1. Creating Schedule F classification to make policy-influencing employees easier to fire
2. Placing DEIA office employees on immediate administrative leave
3. Demanding lists of employees still in probationary periods who lack job protections
4. Requiring employees to return to physical offices
5. Establishing the email ultimatum system requiring justification of work

These measures together create what the American Federation of Government Employees described as a smokescreen for firing civil servants and turning the federal government into an army of yes-men loyal only to the president, not the Constitution. This is their ongoing lawsuit over probationer firings:

The chilling effects are evident in CNN's interviews with workers who spoke only on condition of anonymity "for fear of retaliation." One Department of Homeland Security lawyer with nearly 20 years of service reported "never felt this kind of anxiety about my job," while others expressed concerns about impacts on vital programs serving millions of Americans.

Those targeted with these wedge issues know how this goes

For many targeted employees, particularly those from marginalised communities who have faced historical discrimination, these tactics likely feel hauntingly familiar. The seemingly innocuous demand to "Tell me what you did today" takes on entirely different meanings depending on power dynamics and context.

I say 'Jump' you say 'How high?'. Questioning the order or failure to jump is in itself cause to take your livelihood away. On the other hand, if you jump and someone doesn't like the way you did it (or your colour / gender / attitude / other information harvested about you), the upshot will likely be the same.

Impact of Executive Order Revoking Non-Discrimination Protections for LGBTQ Federal Employees and Employees of Federal Contractors

A think tank at UCLA Law dedicated to conducting rigorous, independent research on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policyWilliams Institute | A think tank at UCLA Law dedicated to conducting rigorous, independent research on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy

Williams InstituteLoyal | thisisloyal.com

The UCLA Williams Institute report on repeal of protections for LGBTQ federal employees reveals that transgender workers already face significantly different work experiences than their cisgender colleagues - only 39% would recommend their organisation as a good place to work compared to 69% of cisgender employees. More than one-quarter (29%) of transgender federal employees disagreed that they "can be successful in my organization being myself."

Similar shifting standards and impossible-to-satisfy demands are well-documented in many studies of workplace discrimination. The "I say jump" dynamic creates classic double-binds where the real issue is not performance but identity. Female employees frequently report receiving contradictory feedback - criticised for not being assertive enough one week, then labelled as "too aggressive" the next. For employees of colour, research consistently shows higher standards of proof for competence and harsher penalties for perceived mistakes.

The requirement to respond to an ambiguous email demand with unstated but severe consequences - being considered "resigned" - creates precisely the kind of psychological stress that Vought explicitly stated was the goal. This approach leverages uncertainty and fear as management tools, contrary to evidence-based practices for effective public administration or workforce management.

The camp commandant mentality

Finally, speaking purely personally, this sent me back to a scene in a movie. When I watched Schindler's List it wasn't the girl in the red coat that got me, it was the maid in the commandant's house in the middle of the concentration camp. When Schindler spoke to her she admitted she was not persistently abused, but she was utterly psychologically broken by having no consistent rules. No predictable path to follow to stay safe.

Waking up not knowing whether the order to 'Jump!' would come. If it did, what the specific demands would look like. Equally unsure about severity of possible punishment, having watched the commandant using prisoners for target practice.

It is also worth noting that the maid was a real person. Helen Jonas-Rosenzweig. She died in 2018 at the age of 93 still calling for us all to remember our history. Persecution of Jews, but also others under common DEIA umbrellas. Among them LGBTQ people, racial minorities, disabled people, homeless people, travellers, and those who resisted the movement. We should not ignore these echoes from history.

Those Who Were There: Helen Jonas

Deported to the Plaszów concentration camp, Helen Jonas faced almost certain death. Instead, she was chosen by the camp’s commandant to be his servant.

Museum of Jewish Heritage — A Living Memorial to the HolocaustTreva Walsh

I'm interested in how others might characterise the conduct.