When Elon Musk acquired Twitter in 2022, his sweeping layoffs, refusal to pay rent, and auctioning off office equipment signaled a dramatic shift in the company’s operations, aiming for significant changes. Now, Musk is replicating this aggressive approach within the federal government, drawing warnings from those familiar with his tactics at Twitter. Critics anticipate that his methods will lead to turmoil, budget cuts based on ideological beliefs rather than fiscal prudence, and a flurry of legal challenges.
As the head of the Department of Government Efficiency, Musk has taken significant steps to consolidate power within the government, often with the support of former President Donald Trump. He has sidelined established officials, accessed confidential databases, and invited a constitutional debate regarding the extent of presidential power. Emily Horne, who previously worked in policy communications at Twitter before joining the Biden administration, described Musk’s strategy as “Take it over, ruthlessly purge anyone who he sees as opposition and crash operations to remake it in his worldview.”
It remains uncertain if Musk’s drastic transformations at Twitter have yielded financial benefits. The platform, now referred to as X, has seen a notable decline in revenue and a reduction in user numbers, leading to Musk’s increasing frustration regarding the sluggish turnaround of its financial situation. Ross Gerber, a minority stakeholder at X who has written off his investment entirely, expressed doubts about Musk’s success in the governmental arena: “The federal government is going to eat him up and spit him out.” Despite some metrics indicating that X maintains a vast user base and political influence, the comprehensive financial health of the company is unclear due to its private status.
Amid threats of mass layoffs for federal employees, banks that financed Musk’s Twitter acquisition were preparing for financial losses while attempting to transfer their loans. Musk seems to have lost hope of regaining major advertising support and is currently involved in legal disputes with several brands. Though numerous business leaders have successfully transitioned into government positions by focusing on budgetary efficiency, Musk has made it evident that his focus extends beyond operational effectiveness, waging a campaign against what he perceives as a “woke” agenda.
Musk’s dismantling of Twitter’s diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives took place well before such issues became prominent in Trump’s third presidential campaign. Theodora Skeadas, a former employee whose position was eliminated shortly after Musk’s takeover, stated, “The culture of Twitter died. For a lot of these agencies and organizations, that may be in their future.” This indicates a potential trajectory for those government entities facing similar approaches. Musk’s emphasis on demonstrations of loyalty among staff was another technique he utilized, characterized as a form of intimidation by former Twitter executive Rumman Chowdhury.
Notably, under Musk’s leadership, ad revenue for X fell substantially as companies bolted from the platform, fearing lax content moderation. Instead of seeking to rebuild relationships with advertisers, Musk resorted to threats and harsh denunciations of those who left. His controversial remarks at a conference discouraged brands from advertising at all, leading advertising consultant Tom Hespos to advise clients against even engaging on X due to potential brand damage. Later, Musk intensified the situation by suing several major companies for what he termed an “illegal boycott.”
A federal judge recently issued a stay on a deadline for government employees to accept Musk’s untenable “deferred resignation offer,” reminiscent of a similarly styled message he had sent to Twitter staff. Shannon Liss-Riordan, representing many of the former Twitter employees now engaged in legal disputes with Musk, emphasized concern over his decision-making process, fearing it could have similar financial repercussions for the government.
Musk’s prior strategy at Twitter of slashing the workforce and selling off company property is mirrored in his current federal initiatives. Unpaid bills have also been a thorny issue, culminating in lawsuits from landlords seeking recompense from the social media company. As these legal struggles continue, experts question whether Musk’s business-centric mentality can translate effectively into public service operations.
Nicholas Bagley, a law professor, suggested that Musk and Trump might be overstepping by exercising financial control meant for Congress, which could lead to significant legal repercussions. As he noted, “All this is of dubious legality,” reflecting apprehension about the impact of such bold moves on the civil service protections that exist to shield federal employees from politically motivated layoffs.
Some individuals connected with Musk have cautioned against hasty actions, emphasizing that government operates under vastly different principles compared to corporations. Paul Graham, a notable tech investor, advised Musk to proceed with caution, stressing that the government represents a system in its entirety, unlike companies that may flourish or fade.
While Musk has inspired a sense of belonging among his team, some observers, like Gerber, predict his initiative in Washington may not succeed. “The idea that you can fire all these people doesn’t work,” he commented, foreseeing an inevitable showdown ahead.
