In a recent political twist, Elon Musk’s controversial overhaul of Twitter—now rebranded as X—could serve as a blueprint for a dramatic restructuring of the US government. With Donald Trump’s recent electoral victory, there’s mounting speculation that Musk’s approach to slashing staff, eliminating bureaucracy, and turning X into a political tool might be mirrored in Washington.
Musk’s Influence and Potential Role in the Trump Administration
The idea gained traction after former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy suggested that Trump’s administration should implement a sweeping reduction in federal employees, a move that could be led by Musk. Ramaswamy hinted at reinstituting Schedule F, a Trump-era executive order that made it easier to fire federal employees, and suggested Musk could head a “government-efficiency commission.”
Drawing a comparison to Musk’s actions at Twitter, he argued for eliminating up to 75% of federal positions. “That’s not the character of, certainly, what Elon did at Twitter, and I don’t think it’s going to be the character of what the most important part of that project actually looks like, which is shaving down and thinning down the bureaucracy,” Ramaswamy remarked.
The parallels are clear. Musk’s drastic cuts at Twitter saw around 80% of the workforce dismissed within months. What followed was a period of instability, with essential functions like trust and safety, content moderation, and customer support facing severe setbacks. Nonetheless, for Musk and his supporters, the sweeping layoffs were seen as a necessary purge to rid the company of “woke bureaucracy” and refocus it as a free-speech platform aligned with conservative interests.
The “D.O.G.E.” Department: Musk’s Possible Government Efficiency Role
During the campaign, Trump floated the idea of a new Department of Government Efficiency—dubbed D.O.G.E., in a nod to Musk’s favourite cryptocurrency, Dogecoin. This department, if established, could give Musk sweeping powers to “drain the swamp” by dismantling federal agencies, eliminating what he views as bureaucratic waste, and reorganising government operations. Supporters of the plan, including right-wing commentators, see Musk’s approach to cutting jobs and restructuring Twitter as a test case for similar moves within the federal government.
Musk’s heavy-handed style at Twitter included not only mass layoffs but also the elimination of entire departments responsible for ethics and transparency. For some, this was a symbolic victory against the supposed liberal bias of Silicon Valley. “Nothing of value was lost,” tweeted one right-wing commentator after Musk gutted Twitter’s moderation team. If Musk applies similar tactics in the federal government, it would mean a significant reduction in departments seen as unnecessary or ideologically opposed to Trump’s agenda.
Parallels with Project 2025 and the Heritage Foundation
Musk’s Twitter experiment aligns with proposals from Project 2025, a conservative blueprint to overhaul the federal government in Trump’s second term. The project calls for the elimination of entire departments and programs, from education to environmental oversight, and proposes replacing career officials with political appointees loyal to Trump’s vision. The goal: streamline the government, cut spending, and reduce the power of what Trump has frequently referred to as the “deep state.”
Critics warn that applying Musk’s Twitter playbook to the federal government could have serious consequences. While Musk could afford technical glitches and missteps on a social media platform, gutting critical government functions—such as disaster response, regulatory oversight, and public health preparedness—could destabilise the country. “The federal government is not a software company,” noted one political analyst. “If you start slashing these departments, you could be sacrificing essential services that impact Americans’ everyday lives.”
Financial Parallels: From Twitter’s Bottom Line to Federal Budget Cuts
Musk’s rationale for Twitter layoffs was a financial one. He claimed the platform had only months to live due to bloated spending, making drastic cuts essential. Since Trump’s win, Musk has echoed similar sentiments about the federal budget, recently stating, “We have to reduce spending to live within our means.” This mirrors Musk’s justification for layoffs at Twitter, where he called job cuts “painful” but necessary to balance the budget.
However, Musk’s tenure at Twitter has not been an unqualified success. Despite trimming the workforce, Twitter’s rebranding as X and Musk’s management style have alienated advertisers and led to steep revenue declines. Fidelity recently estimated that X has lost nearly 80% of its value since Musk’s acquisition, a financial reality that could cast doubt on the efficacy of Musk’s austerity measures if applied to government.
The Long-Term Risks of Musk’s “Twitter Playbook” in Government
While Musk’s supporters argue that his willingness to challenge the status quo makes him an ideal figure to “reform” the government, critics highlight that Twitter’s instability under his leadership could be a warning. Under Musk, X has become a platform that amplifies far-right views, conspiracy theories, and, at times, questionable information. A government run under Musk’s model might similarly downplay transparency and ethical considerations, prioritising efficiency over accountability.
Even Musk’s own mother, Maye Musk, appeared to endorse this idea in an interview with Fox News, saying, “He’s going to just get rid of people who are not working, or don’t have a job, or not doing a job well, just like he did on Twitter … He can do it for the government, too.”
If Musk’s approach at X foreshadows his potential role in Trump’s administration, it may mean unprecedented upheaval in the federal government. While supporters see this as the ultimate MAGA achievement - turning bureaucracy into a streamlined machine of Trump’s design - others worry it could create an even more polarised, less functional federal structure, driven by ideological motives rather than public service.