When Elon Musk acquired Twitter in 2022, he swiftly implemented drastic cost-cutting measures—laying off thousands, halting rent payments, and even auctioning off office furniture—in a bid to revive the platform.

Now, Musk has taken the same hardline approach to the federal government, wielding significant influence with President Donald Trump’s support. However, those who witnessed his leadership at Twitter warn that Washington should brace for turmoil—ideologically driven downsizing, fear-based management, legal battles, and widespread disruption.

Since taking charge of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Musk has consolidated authority over vast areas of governance, sidelined experienced officials, accessed sensitive databases, and provoked constitutional disputes over executive power.

US lawmakers seek ban on DeepSeek from government devices

Emily Horne, a former Twitter policy communications head who later joined the Biden administration, describes Musk’s leadership style as: “Take over, purge perceived opposition without hesitation, and dismantle operations to reshape them in his vision.”

Whether Musk’s radical overhaul at Twitter has succeeded remains unclear. The platform, now rebranded as X, has suffered a decline in revenue and user engagement, with Musk himself voicing frustration over its slow financial recovery.

“It’s failing,” said Ross Gerber, a minority X shareholder who has written off his investment, predicting that Musk will struggle in Washington as well. “The federal government will chew him up and spit him out.”

Despite financial setbacks, X continues to attract a large global user base and bolster Musk’s political clout. However, as he pushes for mass layoffs in federal agencies, banks that funded his Twitter acquisition are scrambling to offload the debt, while advertisers remain hesitant to return to X.

Musk’s approach extends beyond mere efficiency; it’s also about eliminating what he sees as a “woke” agenda. Long before Trump made opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) a campaign focus, Musk dismantled Twitter’s DEI programs and dismissed the employees overseeing them.

“The culture of Twitter died,” said Theodora Skeadas, a former employee laid off soon after Musk’s $44 billion takeover. “That could be the fate of many government agencies too.”

Another tactic Musk has carried over to government: demanding public displays of loyalty.

Former Twitter executive Rumman Chowdhury recalls how Musk required engineers to print out their code for in-person review by less-experienced evaluators—a move she sees as intimidation rather than productive oversight.

“It’s a fear-driven strategy,” Chowdhury said. “And judging by Twitter/X’s performance, it’s not effective long-term.”

Musk later sought to rehire some of the engineers he had fired. His confrontational style also alienated advertisers. Within months of his Twitter acquisition, advertising revenue plummeted by 50% as brands feared he was relaxing content moderation excessively. Rather than attempting to win them back, Musk lashed out, threatening to publicly shame departing advertisers and later telling them to “go f*** themselves” at a conference.

“That was self-sabotage,” said ad consultant Tom Hespos, who subsequently advised clients to avoid even posting on X to protect their brands.

In August, Musk escalated his battle by suing companies like Unilever, Mars, and CVS Health, accusing them of an “illegal boycott.” He later expanded the lawsuit to include brands such as Lego, Shell, and Nestlé.

His legal entanglements extend beyond advertisers—he is still embroiled in disputes with over 2,000 former Twitter employees. Last week, a judge paused a deadline requiring government workers to accept a severance offer Musk had proposed, echoing his controversial “fork in the road” ultimatum at Twitter in 2022.

Lawyer Shannon Liss-Riordan, who represents many ex-Twitter employees, said Musk’s reluctance to settle disputes cost X “an insane amount of money” in legal fees. “If this is how he’s running the federal government, I’d be seriously worried about its finances.”

Neither X nor DOGE responded to requests for comment from the Associated Press.

Musk’s extreme cost-cutting at Twitter also involved simply not paying debts, leading landlords in San Francisco and the UK to sue for unpaid rent. While the British case settled privately, the U.S. case was dismissed under unclear terms. Musk has since brought one of X’s real estate executives into the government.

Even if Musk’s cuts had been an undeniable success at X, applying the same strategies to government agencies—where services must continue uninterrupted—poses a different challenge.

Legal experts warn that Musk and Trump are overstepping congressional spending authority, predicting that lawsuits will stall their efforts.

“All of this is legally questionable,” said University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley. “And that’s before considering civil service protections that prevent politically motivated firings. There will be a lot of bold rhetoric, but in practice, they’ll achieve much less.”

Some allies have urged Musk to slow down. Tech investor Paul Graham recently advised him via X to “take your time and be careful.”

“The government isn’t just another company,” Graham warned. “Companies come and go—it’s fine. But we’re talking about the system itself here.”

Minority X shareholder Gerber acknowledges Musk’s ability to foster loyalty within his companies but doubts his methods will succeed in Washington.

“You can’t just fire everyone,” Gerber said. “This is going to be a historic battle.”