X’s advertising revenues are down, yet to be compensated for by the various paid-for options Musk has put in. Millions of users have quit or defected to other social media. The value of the company has been estimated at less than $10 billion, down from the $44 billion Musk paid. 

It is also unclear where in government Musk would find his vaunted $2 trillion in savings. Speaking on Fox News on November 2, Musk’s mother, Maye, said: “He’s going to just get rid of people who are not working, or don’t have a job, or not doing a job well, just like he did on Twitter. He can do it for the government, too.”

Courting controversy

If only it were that simple. The federal government employs nearly three million people, while there are another 20 million or so at state or local level. If Musk were to somehow apply Twitter tactics to the federal government, that would make 2.4 million people unemployed, an increase of 35 per cent on the overall US employment rate. The president only has limited discretion on the budget anyway. The bulk of government spending, on things like social security, is guaranteed by law. Where there is more discretion, on defence, it would probably be controversial to make sweeping cuts.  

Besides, says Sander, not every job in government requires a rocket scientist.

“There will be some areas of the enormous machine that require innovation, but it’s also an extremely different workforce,” she says. “A lot of [jobs] are routine, they’re administrative, and they’re not jobs that a rocket scientist would want to do.”

Nor is this the first time a president has craved efficiency. Government streamlining is one of those topics that comes around every decade or so. Nobody succeeds. In the 1930s, reforms recommended by the Brownlow Commission under FDR helped to improve presidential control of government. There were two Hoover Commissions, in 1947 and 1953, aimed at reducing fraud and government wastage. Nixon had the Ash Council. In 1982, Ronald Reagan – pledging to “drain the swamp” before Trump reappropriated the phrase – had the Grace Commission. None of these initiatives has been very successful. 

“It’s a conservative dream that if we have efficiency we’d get rid of fraud, waste and abuse and we’d be in fiscal paradise,” says Iwan Morgan, emeritus professor of US history at UCL. “It has never happened. It’s very, very difficult to cut. The Republicans have been trying for years to cut government and it doesn’t quite work. You never say never with Trump, but when was the last time a federal department was eliminated? Federal departments are added, not eliminated.” 

Recipe for corruption

Musk might have more joy cutting regulation. He has frequently bemoaned government interference in his businesses. The space and automotive industries are heavily regulated. In both, Musk has also benefited extensively from government money; in the form of green subsidies for electric cars and contracts for satellite launches. 

“The big benefit for Elon seems to come from the idea of where he could cut regulation,” says Higgins. “He talks a lot about regulations that are holding him back. He tends to be very literal. SpaceX and Tesla operate in highly regulated worlds. Having the ability to influence that process could be incredibly valuable.” 

Musk legislating on his own special areas of interest could easily be a recipe for corruption. “It raises a lot of conflicts of interest, because Musk has a lot of business interest in government activities,” says Scott Amey, general counsel for the Project on Government Oversight, a corruption watchdog. “When you come in and take a public service job, you have an obligation to the public. You can’t just raid the cabinet. When people come in and work for the public they serve the public. You want to make sure they are fair, unbiased, and not using public office for private gain.”

“He may find it was easier in the private sector,” Amey adds. “The government operates differently from a company. Some things may translate well into making the government more efficient, but others aren’t going to work. I hope people come in with a realistic process that can result in real change, and aren’t just here to throw grenades for the sake of grenades.” The legal snafus ensuing from Musk’s time at Twitter are trivial compared with what he could expect from trying to scythe through government red tape. The Department of Government Efficiency might be a Doge gag, but it also sounds like the kind of oxymoronic bureaucracy you might find in The Thick of It.