Elon Musk’s Twitter playbook could be a blueprint for Donald Trump’s second term

In a recent political shift, 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 election victory, there is increasing speculation that Musk’s approach of reducing staff, eliminating red tape, and turning X into a political tool could spill over into Washington.

Musk’s Influence and Potential Role in the Trump Administration

The idea gained traction after former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy suggested that the Trump administration should implement a sweeping reduction in the number of federal employees, a move that Musk could lead. Ramaswamy hinted at reintroducing Plan F, the Trump-era executive order that made it easier to fire federal employees, and suggested Musk could chair a “government efficiency commission.”

He argued that up to 75% of federal positions should be eliminated, drawing a comparison to Musk’s actions on Twitter. “That’s certainly not the character of what Elon is doing on Twitter, and I don’t think what the most important part of the project, which is shaving and thinning the bureaucracy, will actually look like,” Ramaswamy noted.

The parallels are clear. Musk’s drastic cuts on Twitter led to the layoffs of nearly 80% of the workforce within months. What followed was a period of instability in which core functions such as trust and security, content moderation, and customer support faced serious disruptions. However, for Musk and his supporters, the sweeping layoffs were seen as a necessary purge to save the company from “woke bureaucracy” and refocus it as a free speech platform aligned with conservative interests.

Department of “DOGE”: Musk’s Possible Role in Government Efficiency

During the campaign, Trump floated the idea of ​​a new Department of Government Efficiency called DOGE, a reference to Musk’s favorite cryptocurrency, Dogecoin. If established, the department would give Musk broad powers to “drain the swamp” by disbanding federal agencies, eliminating what he sees as bureaucratic waste, and reorganizing government operations. Supporters of the plan, including right-wing commentators, see Musk’s approach to layoffs and restructuring Twitter as a test case for similar moves within the federal government.

Musk’s harsh stance on 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 over Silicon Valley’s so-called liberal bias. “Nothing of value was lost,” one right-wing commentator tweeted after Musk destroyed Twitter’s moderation team. If Musk implements similar tactics in the federal government, it would mean a significant reduction in departments deemed unnecessary or ideologically opposed to Trump’s agenda.

Parallels with Project 2025 and the Heritage Foundation

Musk’s Twitter experiment is in line with proposals from Project 2025, a conservative plan to overhaul the federal government during Trump’s second term. The project calls for the elimination of entire departments and programs, from education to environmental oversight, and recommends 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 often calls the “deep state.”

Critics warn that applying Musk’s Twitter playbook to the federal government could have serious consequences. While Musk can afford technical glitches and missteps on a social media platform, gutting critical government functions like disaster response, regulatory oversight and public health preparedness could destabilize the country. “The federal government is not a software company,” said one political analyst. “If you start cutting these departments, you may be sacrificing essential services that impact Americans’ daily lives.”

Financial Parallels: From Twitter’s Consequences to Federal Budget Cuts

Musk’s reason for the layoffs at Twitter was financial. He claimed that the platform had only a few months left to live due to inflated expenses, necessitating drastic cuts. Since Trump’s win, Musk has echoed similar sentiments about the federal budget, recently saying: “We must reduce spending to live within our means.” This echoes Musk’s justification for the layoffs on Twitter, where he called the layoffs “painful” but necessary to balance the budget.

But Musk’s tenure at Twitter hasn’t been a complete success. Despite reducing its workforce, Twitter’s rebranding as X and Musk’s management style alienated advertisers and led to steep revenue declines. Fidelity recently estimated that X has lost about 80% of its value since Musk’s acquisition; This financial fact could cast doubt on the effectiveness of Musk’s austerity measures if implemented in government.

Long-Term Risks of Musk’s Government ‘Twitter Playbook’

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 amplifying far-right views, conspiracy theories and, at times, dubious information. A government run by Musk’s model could similarly downplay transparency and ethical considerations, prioritizing efficiency over accountability.

Even Musk’s mother, Maye Musk, seemed to approve of the idea in an interview with Fox News, saying: “It’s going to get rid of people who don’t work, don’t have a job, or don’t do a good job.” “Just like he did on Twitter… He can also do this on behalf of the government.”

If Musk’s approach to X is a harbinger of his potential role in the Trump administration, it could mean an unprecedented upheaval in the federal government. Supporters see this as the ultimate MAGA achievement, transforming the bureaucracy into a machine tailored to Trump’s design, while others worry it could create an even more polarized, less functional federal structure driven by ideological motivations rather than public service.