Elon Musk Downsized Big Tech. Can He Do the Same to Big Government?
NEWS | 18 November 2024
Last week, Donald Trump announced the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency, which promises to "dismantle government bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies." And to run the new cost-cutting department, Trump tapped the businessman he calls the world's "greatest cutter" — Elon Musk. If you're looking to take a chainsaw to the federal government, Musk seems perfectly suited to the job. At Twitter, he eliminated a staggering 80% of the staff — over 6,000 people. At Tesla, he cut 10% of the workforce, saying the company needed to be "absolutely hardcore about headcount and cost reduction." He also laid off 10% of employees at Space X, insisting his teams need to be scrappy and nimble. Cutting, for Musk, is generally Job No. 1. For the most part, Musk's slash-and-burn tactics have paid off. Twitter usage, according to Musk, is at an all-time high. Tesla's stock is up 28% over the past year. And SpaceX — now valued at $250 billion — is grabbing rockets out of the sky with giant chopsticks. In the world of business, fewer workers often translate into higher profits. Other tech leaders, inspired by Musk, were quick to follow suit: Last year the industry laid off more than 250,000 employees. The question is: Can the cost-cutting tactics Musk has employed in the private sector work to corral waste and bloat in the federal government? Musk and his DOGE cochair, the biotech billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy, have said they're looking to hire "super high-IQ small government revolutionaries" to help make $2 trillion in cuts — about a third of all federal spending — and to slash the federal workforce by as much as 75%. It's a dream that has eluded every Republican administration since Ronald Reagan — and it's one that may prove elusive even for Musk, the man now anointed as America's cost-cutter in chief. There's certainly no shortage of waste and inefficiency in the federal government that cries out to be streamlined. In 2019, the Defense Department forked over $22 million for lobster tails. In 2020, the IRS sent $1.4 billion in tax refunds to dead Americans. Millions of square feet in federal buildings sit unoccupied. In theory, a bold, outside figure like Musk could be the very thing needed to downscale an operation as vast and intractable as the federal government. Large organizations need a force of "creative destruction" to change, says Michael Morris, a professor at Columbia Business School. "Things don't go away on their own. You have to have somebody with a willingness to deliberately dismantle things if you're going to have innovation." And when a new figure institutes a massive shock to the system — whether at the government or private level — "it often backfires," says Morris. "There's often very fierce, active resistance to change." Even if Musk had the right idea for things, it's not so clear he could implement any of them. Andy Wu, associate professor at Harvard Business School As CEO, Musk has the latitude to push past that resistance and overhaul company culture. But things are going to be different with DOGE. Despite its branding as a "department," the new outfit will operate only in an advisory capacity: Congress holds the ultimate responsibility for authorizing spending and eliminating agencies. Government, by design, is an intensely collaborative process, intended to hammer out the competing needs of different constituencies. Musk, by contrast, is accustomed to ruling by fiat. "Musk certainly exercises a great deal of control in his companies that he won't have in the environment of the federal government, where we have checks and balances," says Andy Wu, an associate professor of business administration at Harvard Business School. "Even if Musk had the right idea for things, it's not so clear he could implement any of them." The federal government is infamous for holding on to past practices, even when they no longer make sense. Linda Bilmes, a senior lecturer in public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, cites the continued minting of the penny, each of which costs three cents to produce. Last year, in an economy that has largely moved away from cash, the government spent $179 million forging pennies and nickels. Yet past calls to get rid of the penny haven't amounted to one red cent. Related stories "The danger is if Elon Musk were to somehow think he is the first person who has ever looked at cost cutting in government," says Bilmes. "Many people who know a lot about government have proposed many good ideas. The potential for usefulness would be if he could take some already reasonably good ideas and help them get implemented." The Government Accountability Office and inspectors general have already recommended a variety of potential targets. They aren't always flashy: This year, the GAO recommended agencies use predictive models to schedule maintenance, saying they could save $100 million or more. It also urged the IRS to focus on collecting taxes owed by sole proprietors, which could generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. If the government implemented all 5,480 of its suggestions, the GAO estimated, it would "produce measurable financial benefits" of up to $208 billion. But so far, Musk has seemed more interested in the kind of flashy, small-bore proposals that attract clicks on X. He's taken to resharing what he sees as examples of waste — everything from $3 million spent on drug research that involved watching "hamsters fight on steroids" to a $20,000 grant that funded drag shows in Ecuador — and crowdsourcing them on the platform. Those sorts of items might generate outrage among taxpayers, but eliminating them won't do much to trim the federal government's $6,200,000,000,000 in annual spending. Then there's the politics of budget cutting. The last time Republicans succeeded at slowing government spending, under Ronald Reagan, they made deep cuts to areas of government that proved unpopular — including social welfare programs, student loans, and job training. Musk may see plenty of areas he'd like to slash, but a wide range of constituencies will inevitably push back against cuts to programs they consider essential. When it comes to federal spending, one person's waste is another person's bread and butter. Related stories "People support the idea of improving how the government delivers services," says Joel Friedman, the senior vice president for federal fiscal policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a progressive think tank. "I think people would take a different view if you end up gutting programs they depend on and care about." Efficiency always sounds like a good thing, until it comes for something you love. Beyond the question of where to cut, Musk will face intense scrutiny over why he's targeting certain areas of government. His role at DOGE is rife with the potential for conflicts of interest. SpaceX, for example, has received nearly $20 billion in federal contracts since 2008, and Musk has been sharply critical of the Federal Aviation Administration, viewing it as an obstacle to launching his powerful Starship. And his massive investments in electric vehicles and social media are dependent on all sorts of federal spending and oversight. When it comes to how the government interacts with the marketplace, the world's richest man inherently has a lot of skin in the game. Musk's companies did not respond to requests for comment. But Brian Hughes, a spokesperson for Trump's transition team, says it plans to ensure that those involved with DOGE "are compliant with all legal guidelines related to conflicts of interest." Those concerns also touch on the larger question of what Trump and his allies hope to accomplish by reducing the size of government. Calls for reducing "inefficiency" and "bureaucracy" have long been a euphemism for Republicans eager to reduce or eliminate federal oversight of everything from industrial pollution to airline safety. Less government is not necessarily better government, and there are plenty of federal agencies that remain so understaffed and underfunded, from the IRS to the Veterans Administration, that they're unable to perform even their most basic functions. The GOP's aim of cutting spending, a leading Reagan ally once acknowledged, is to shrink government to the size where conservatives can "drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." On Friday, Ramaswamy directly linked DOGE to the Reagan-era dream of smaller government, promising that the new agency will finish its work by July 4, 2026 — the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. And even when conservatives have succeeded at cutting costs, it's done nothing to slow the pace of government spending. Reagan slashed $22 billion in social welfare programs during his first two years in office — savings that were more than offset by his tax cuts and military spending, which nearly tripled the national debt. And in 1981, when a deep recession hit, carving up the safety net left the millions of Americans who were mired in poverty with even fewer resources to get by. It's also important to remember that Musk did more than downsize X — he also used the platform to elevate far-right talking points and unfounded conspiracy theories. In short, he reshaped it to serve his own political ends, making it meaner as well as leaner. It remains to be seen if Musk will do the same with DOGE. There are plenty of places where Uncle Sam could spend America's hard-earned tax dollars more wisely. But there are also plenty of places where the man Trump's family now refers to as "Uncle" Elon could deploy what DOGE calls "unglamorous cost-cutting" to bend the federal government to serve his own financial needs. Musk has acknowledged that Americans will feel "hardship" as a result of the cuts he wants to see implemented. But that doesn't mean he won't be able to juice more performance out of fewer resources, as he did at his own companies. When Musk slashed the workforce at Twitter, critics predicted that the app would collapse without enough staff to maintain it. Two years later, after a few initial glitches, it works much the same as before — at a far lower cost. Doubting Musk, even when he seems to be operating at his most extreme, can be a fool's game.
Author: Amanda Hoover.
Source