Elon Musk has a new job doing something he knows a lot about: firing people. Many people. Now you’re about to put your layoff skills to the test in the biggest downsizing challenge in American history.
He is co-head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), recently formed by President-elect Donald Trump to reduce government regulations, fire unnecessary workers and save money. Musk’s partner is Vivek Ramaswamy, a former biotech entrepreneur and candidate for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. His ambition is impressive. In a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, they write that they anticipate “massive staff reductions across the federal bureaucracy,” which will be their main tool for cutting costs. Ramaswamy has suggested laying off 75% of federal employees.
Musk seems like the right man for the job. He has fired a significant number of workers at SpaceX and Tesla, of which he is CEO of both, but for an exuberant layoff, nothing matches his performance on Twitter. When he bought the company in 2022, he began massive layoffs within a week, laying off thousands of the company’s 8,000 workers overnight. Some received the news by email. Others could only infer that they were fired when they were unable to access the internal computer system the next morning. Some were even fired by accident and were reinstated. In the following months, he laid off more employees. Six months after taking control, Musk told the BBC that he had reduced staff by more than 80%.
It’s hard to know exactly how X (as Musk rebranded Twitter) has fared since the company is no longer publicly traded, but the signs are not promising. Fidelity owns a minority interest in X and reports its estimated value. According to Fidelity’s October estimate, X has lost 79% of its value since Musk took over.
Will Musk take Twitter’s playbook to America’s largest employer, the federal government? It’s easy to imagine Washington trembling at the idea. But as other captains of industry have discovered, the government is different from the private sector in some peculiar ways. This is what Musk is fighting against.
· DOGE can’t make it happen. Musk was able to fire employees from his companies in the blink of an eye because he was CEO (and on Twitter, also a majority owner). But DOGE “has no power,” says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office and now president of the center-right American Action Forum. “They are an external advisory group that will generate ideas. “They are basically a very prominent think tank.”
· Layoffs depend on the elimination of regulations. DOGE’s stated procedure is to identify federal regulations that appear to be invalid based on two Supreme Court decisions, from 2022 and 2024. President Trump will then strike down “thousands of such regulations,” Musk and Ramaswamy say in their op-ed. Fewer regulations mean a lighter workload and fewer employees. But while Trump can “immediately pause enforcement of those regulations,” they note, he must then “initiate the review and rescission process,” which can take a year or more and may not happen at all. Many regulations have interest groups with a say in what happens. In short, some regulations do not succumb easily.
· Layoffs, even if successful, won’t save much money. Musk and Ramaswamy emphasize that cost savings are central to their mission, but labor costs are a small part of federal spending. The vast majority of what the government spends goes in the form of benefits: Social Security, veterans benefits, food stamps, and many more. All of these benefits have powerful interest groups and are extremely difficult to reduce. Payrolls are not where the money is. Brian Riedl, a Washington-based economist who has been a Senate adviser and worked for Republican officials, says: “If you eliminated 25% of all federal jobs, you would save about 1% of federal spending.” Not that I think a 25% job reduction is going to happen. “I don’t think it’s remotely feasible to reduce the federal workforce by 20%, much less the 75% that Vivek Ramaswamy promises,” he says.
· Federal workers will fight. About a million federal employees belong to unions, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and they are already preparing to take on the Trump administration. Trump has said he will impose a category of employees called Schedule F, reclassifying career civil service employees as political employees, who lack civil service protections and can be quickly fired. Several government unions are trying to protect their members from being classified as Schedule F by appealing to the Federal Office of Personnel Management and the Merit Systems Protection Board. Even if the unions lose, they may be able to hinder the process.
Musk and Ramaswamy say their “main goal for DOGE is to eliminate the need for its existence by July 4, 2026, the expiration date we have set for our project.” Ostensibly, this is to celebrate DOGE’s work as the United States celebrates its 250th anniversary. Practically, it is leaving six months with Republican control of Congress in case DOGE’s work requires legislation. Musk is used to doing large-scale layoffs in days, but he’ll likely need every moment he has to pull off the layoff of a lifetime.
How many degrees of separation are you from the most powerful business leaders in the world? Find out who is part of our new list of the 100 Most Powerful People in Business. Plus, learn about the metrics we use to create it.
**To what extent can Musk’s experience in the fast-paced, profit-driven tech industry translate to the complex and often slower-moving world of government bureaucracy?**
## Interview: Elon Musk Leads Government Efficiency Drive – Dream or Disaster?
**Introduction:**
Welcome to World Today News, where we dissect the latest developments impacting our world. Today, we delve into the controversial appointment of Elon Musk to co-head the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), tasked with downsizing the federal workforce. Joining us are [Guest 1 Name], a renowned expert on labor law and government policy, and [Guest 2 Name], a political analyst specializing in populist movements.
**Section 1: The Musk Factor – Can a Tech Disruptor Revolutionize Government?**
* **Host:** Mr./Ms. [Guest 1], Elon Musk’s reputation as a CEO often involves decisive, and some might say, disruptive, leadership. Can his management style, proven effective in the private sector, translate to the complexities of the federal government?
* **Host:** Mr./Ms. [Guest 2], how do you believe Musk’s involvement will be perceived by different segments of the American public? Is there potential for both strong support and fierce opposition?
**Section 2: Layoffs and the Leviathan – The Reality of Downsizing Government**
* **Host:** Mr./Ms. [Guest 1], the article highlights the challenges associated with large-scale layoffs in the public sector, citing legal complexities and the power of federal employee unions. What are the potential legal and practical obstacles Musk and Ramaswamy may face in reducing the federal workforce by such a significant margin?
* **Host:** Mr./Ms. [Guest 2], Musk and Ramaswamy argue that cost savings are central to their mission. However, the article suggests that personnel costs represent a relatively small portion of federal spending. How do you see this argument for downsizing playing out in the political arena?
**Section 3: The Regulation Debate – Streamlining Government or Dismantling Protections?**
* **Host:** Mr./Ms. [Guest 1], Musk and Ramaswamy propose reducing the federal workforce by targeting outdated regulations. How might this approach impact essential government services and regulatory protections currently in place?
* **Host:** Mr./Ms. [Guest 2], the article mentions the impact on interest groups and the potential for bureaucratic resistance. Could this initiative backfire politically, galvanizing opposition from diverse groups affected by changes to existing regulations?
**Section 4: Looking Ahead – The Legacy of DOGE and the Future of Government Efficiency**
* **Host:** Mr./Ms. [Guest 1], Musk and Ramaswamy aim to dissolve DOGE by July 4, 2026. Whatlasting impact do you anticipate this initiative will have on the structure and function of the federal government regardless of its success in reducing the workforce?
* **Host:** Mr./Ms. [Guest 2], do you believe this initiative represents a genuine effort at government reform or a symbolic gesture exploiting populist sentiment? What are the broader implications for the relationship between the government and the people?
**Conclusion:**
Thank you to our guests for their insightful perspectives on this complex and crucial issue. The future of government efficiency hangs in the balance.
Let me know if you’d like me to expand on any of these questions or add more detailed follow-up questions!
