Federal Cuts Like Twitter Layoffs
False Assumption: Drastic staff reductions in federal agencies succeed the same way as in private companies like Twitter.
Written by FARAgent on February 11, 2026
Elon Musk bought Twitter at a high price in 2022. He fired most employees right away. Enemies predicted collapse. It survived with one-quarter the staff, thanks to insiders like Ben San Souci who explained safe cuts.
Musk now pushes the same for federal agencies through DOGE. Private takeovers like Michael Milken's in the 1980s worked by bribing insiders with bonuses and stock. Federal civil service caps pay at $195,200 in D.C. No big rewards for smart cuts. Bureaucrats gain power from subordinates. They sabotage by firing visible valuable workers.
DOGE lacks planning to target waste first. Bureaucrats lay PR traps. Trump often reverses bad cuts after damage. Political capital wastes on fixing flails.
People Involved
- In the wake of his Twitter acquisition, Elon Musk pushed the idea that federal agencies could slim down just like his company had. He championed this through his support for the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, assuming the same drastic cuts would work in government. [1]
- Ben San Souci, a Twitter engineer, played a key role as an insider, helping Musk spot which cuts were safe and emerging as a loyal ally in the process. [1]
- Critics point to figures like Michael Milken, whose 1980s junk bond team rewarded insiders with bonuses during private sector overhauls, even amid some failures, to highlight how such incentives drove success there. [1] Yet growing questions surround whether federal managers, such as GS-15 bureaucrats, would cooperate without similar rewards, since their power stems from overseeing large staffs and no big bonuses await them for revealing efficiencies. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (4)
“Hence, Musk is trying to apply the same method to federal government agencies.”— Why cutting federal spending isn't like cutting Twitter spending
“with the help of some expert Twitter insiders who turned coats and became Musk loyalists (Musk’s authorized biographer Walter Isaacson focuses, for example, on engineer Ben San Souci as a Twitter worker who could explain to Musk’s team what could be safely cut and what couldn’t be)”— Why cutting federal spending isn't like cutting Twitter spending
“Michael Milken’s gang made a fortune in the 1980s by buying random companies with junk bonds and ordering severe cuts.”— Why cutting federal spending isn't like cutting Twitter spending
“If you are a GS15, much of your compensation is in having a lot of people working for you. Why would you want to betray your loyal underlings by telling Musk which ones you could actually do without if he’s not going to make you substantially richer for it?”— Why cutting federal spending isn't like cutting Twitter spending
Organizations Involved
Twitter managed to endure a 75 percent staff reduction under Musk by keeping the essential quarter, guided by insiders who knew the ropes. [1] This private sector feat fueled assumptions about federal parallels, but critics argue the federal civil service operates differently, with rigid salary caps and no room for flexible bonuses to motivate smart cuts. [1] The DOGE initiative, aimed at slashing federal waste, now faces potential sabotage from within, as it has not spotlighted clear examples of bloat to target. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (3)
“Twitter could survive with only about one-quarter as many employees … as long as they were the right quarter of the original workforce.”— Why cutting federal spending isn't like cutting Twitter spending
“the highest allowable general schedule salary for a federal civil servant in the expensive D.C. metro area is $195,200 — so it's hard to find experienced old-timers who understand exactly what is going on within their organization and who can make smart cuts and want to make smart cuts for you.”— Why cutting federal spending isn't like cutting Twitter spending
“It's almost as if DOGE wasn't carefully planned ahead of time to focus first on the worst examples of waste and fraud, which allows bureaucrats to easily sabotage its efforts with bad PR.”— Why cutting federal spending isn't like cutting Twitter spending
The Foundation
The belief took root in the success of private takeovers, where buyers like those in the Milken era lured insiders with bonuses to make cuts stick. This approach seemed solid based on those examples and Musk's Twitter turnaround, but mounting evidence challenges its fit for federal agencies, which lack such incentive tools. [1] Twitter's ability to survive after shedding three-quarters of its workforce bolstered the notion that government insiders would step up in kind, creating a sub-belief in easy parallels despite the structural differences. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“How? Because the newcomer takeover artists could find good workers within the organization who will make the smart cuts you are too unfamiliar with the organization to figure out for yourself because you offer them a big bonus, a promotion, stock options, etc.”— Why cutting federal spending isn't like cutting Twitter spending
“It turned out that with the help of some expert Twitter insiders who turned coats and became Musk loyalists ... Twitter could survive with only about one-quarter as many employees”— Why cutting federal spending isn't like cutting Twitter spending
How It Spread
Musk's high-profile Twitter overhaul in 2022 spread the idea far and wide, especially as he tied it to DOGE's push for federal efficiency. [1] Media coverage and online discussions amplified the narrative, suggesting government bloat could vanish with similar bold strokes, though critics argue this overlooks key distinctions. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“When Elon Musk overpaid for Twitter, he immediately set about retrieving some of his money by firing a large majority of Twitter employees. ... Hence, Musk is trying to apply the same method to federal government agencies.”— Why cutting federal spending isn't like cutting Twitter spending
Resulting Policies
DOGE rolled out directives for federal agencies to mimic private cuts, such as axing 500 positions at a time, all modeled on the Twitter playbook. [1] This policy aimed to streamline operations but rested on the contested assumption that federal setups would respond like a tech firm. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“if DOGE tells you to fire 500 people, the obvious step is sabotage”— Why cutting federal spending isn't like cutting Twitter spending
Harm Caused
Bureaucrats, facing these cuts, often targeted visible roles first, sparking public relations messes that drained political goodwill. [1] In one scenario, Donald Trump had to reverse DOGE's moves after the backlash, burning through time and capital that could have gone elsewhere. [1] Critics argue these missteps highlight growing risks in applying private tactics to public institutions. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“make DOGE look bad by firing the 500 people who do the work that to the press and public seems the most obviously valuable. ... step on every upside-down rake of a PR fiasco that bureaucrats have carefully laid in its path”— Why cutting federal spending isn't like cutting Twitter spending
“Trump often cancels DOGE's worst mistakes, but not until after DOGEists dream up why, actually, that wasn't a mistake, that was 4D chess. These mistakes are probably not insoluble, but thought and political capital needs to be expended”— Why cutting federal spending isn't like cutting Twitter spending
Downfall
By late 2024, incentive gaps began to surface as a core issue, with federal workers unable to gain rewards for aiding cuts, leading instead to forms of internal resistance. [1] Mounting evidence challenges the assumption's validity, as critics point to this mismatch as a reason why federal trims might not mirror Twitter's path, though the debate continues. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“you aren't allowed to do much of that with federal employees ... what’s in it for them?”— Why cutting federal spending isn't like cutting Twitter spending
Sources
-
[1]
Why cutting federal spending isn't like cutting Twitter spendingreputable_journalism