When Elon Musk acquired Twitter in 2022, he made drastic changes including laying off thousands of employees, halting rent payments, and auctioning off office equipment in a bid for a turnaround. Now, as the wealthiest person globally, he has brought a similar aggressive approach to the federal government. Individuals who experienced Musk’s actions at Twitter are cautioning about potential chaos, ideological cuts, intimidation, and legal battles expected under his leadership.
Taking over the Department of Government Efficiency with President Donald Trump’s support, Musk has consolidated power within the government, sidelined established officials, accessed sensitive data, and initiated a clash over presidential authority limits. Former Twitter executive Emily Horne characterizes Musk’s approach as taking over, purging opposition ruthlessly, and disrupting operations to align with his beliefs.
While the outcome of Musk’s aggressive tactics at Twitter (now X) remains uncertain with declining revenue and user numbers, skepticism grows about his ability to succeed in Washington. Despite maintaining a large user base and political influence, doubts persist over X’s financial health due to its private status.
Simultaneously, Musk’s government teams, threatening massive layoffs, and bankers foreseeing loan losses reveal an uncertain future. Musk’s emphasis on his anti-“woke” stance goes beyond efficiency, evident in his elimination of diversity initiatives at Twitter and DOGE. Former Twitter employees express concern that this culture shift could permeate other organizations in the future.
Musk’s demand for loyalty performances and intimidation tactics have raised eyebrows, with former executives and employees criticizing his leadership style. The fear-based approach has led to setbacks, including challenges with advertisers and code evaluation practices. Despite his attempts to rehire some employees, doubts linger over the sustainability of Musk’s aggressive management tactics.
Following sk’s acquisition, advertising revenue dropped by 50% as brands left X due to concerns that content moderation was being relaxed excessively. Instead of reaching out to these companies, Musk resorted to threatening them on X, stating that he would “thermonuclear name & shame” those who departed from his platform. At a conference, Musk used profanity and advised companies, “Don’t advertise.”
Ad consultant Tom Hespos of Abydos Media remarked, “Talk about shooting yourself in the foot,” cautioning his clients to steer clear of X as it could harm their brand. In August, Musk escalated the situation by suing Unilever, Mars, CVS Health, and several other companies that had discontinued their presence on Twitter, alleging an “illegal boycott.” Additionally, on Saturday, he expanded the lawsuit to include more companies such as Lego, Shell International, Tyson Foods, Nestle, and Colgate-Palmolive.
The protracted legal disputes with over 2,000 former Twitter employees foreshadow potential legal battles that the government might face. A federal judge temporarily suspended a midnight deadline the same day for government employees to accept Musk’s “deferred resignation offer,” promising pay until September without having to work.
Furthermore, Musk’s cost-cutting measures at Twitter, which included reducing the workforce and selling off assets, led to financial strain within the company. Musk’s approach extended to non-payment of bills, resulting in legal action from landlords seeking millions in unpaid rent in both San Francisco and the UK.
Despite Musk’s attempt to replicate his strategy at X within the government, the effectiveness of such tactics in terms of cost reduction and service delivery remains uncertain. Legal expert Nicholas Bagley from the University of Michigan believes that Musk and Trump are overstepping their spending authority, potentially triggering legal challenges that could impede their initiatives.
Amidst concerns raised by figures like tech investor Paul Graham about the need for caution and deliberation, the future of Musk’s actions within the government remains uncertain.
Speaking about this matter, “Minority X” stockholder Gerber, who is the CEO of the investment firm Gerber Kawasaki, admires Musk for creating a feeling of unity among employees, labeling them as the “special forces of business.” However, he predicts that Musk’s endeavors in Washington will not be successful. “The notion that one can simply dismiss all these individuals is not feasible,” he stated. “We are on the brink of witnessing a monumental clash.”
