
Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency: A Case Study in Enshitification
Elon Musk loves to talk about inefficiency. He rails against “unelected bureaucrats,” mocks regulatory agencies, and champions his own brand of disruptive innovation. But here’s the twist: the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) does exist—just not in the way a government department normally would. Created through an executive order by President Trump, DOGE is a workaround, a patch, something operating outside the usual constitutional framework. It bypasses traditional governance structures, existing in a legal gray area where it can make sweeping changes without the same oversight that applies to other federal agencies. And at the center of it all? Musk—an unelected bureaucrat in every sense, wielding immense power while pretending to fight against it.
X as a Case Study in Musk’s Governance Philosophy
Musk’s transformation of X (formerly Twitter) offers the clearest example of how he applies his ideology to an institution. Under the guise of “efficiency,” he fired critical staff, dismantled content moderation, and changed platform rules on a whim—often reversing them just days later. The result? A site riddled with misinformation, advertiser flight, and a user experience that has steadily deteriorated. If X were a government agency, it would be in shambles, its infrastructure collapsing under the weight of impulsive decision-making and a disregard for expert input.
This is what enshitification looks like in real time: first, a platform (or institution) provides value. Then, it is optimized to extract maximum value for its owner. Finally, it degrades as short-term thinking undermines its core function. We’ve seen it happen with tech giants like Facebook and Amazon. Musk is simply accelerating the process. And now, he’s applying this same model to governance through DOGE.
The Irony of Musk’s War on Bureaucracy
Musk’s disdain for government oversight isn’t just ideological—it’s self-serving. He has benefited enormously from taxpayer-funded subsidies for Tesla and SpaceX, yet he repeatedly derides the institutions that made his success possible. He frames bureaucrats as obstacles to progress, but what he truly opposes is accountability. Unlike elected officials or career civil servants, who must answer to voters or governing bodies, Musk answers to no one. His role within DOGE allows him to make sweeping recommendations that impact federal operations, yet as a special government employee (SGE), he is only technically allowed to serve in this capacity for 130 days in a 365-day period. The limits are clear—yet the administration has still framed him as being “in charge” of DOGE, despite no legal framework granting him such power.
The Bigger Risk: Enshitification of Governance Itself
The danger isn’t just that Musk’s model degrades social media platforms—it’s that it represents a larger trend in governance. What happens when government agencies, public utilities, or entire regulatory frameworks are restructured in the Muskian mold? We’ve already seen glimpses of this philosophy in certain political movements that prioritize disruption over function, privatization over public good, and unchecked individual power over democratic processes. DOGE isn’t just an idea—it’s a real entity now, operating without the same constitutional grounding as traditional agencies. It represents an effort to erode government infrastructure under the guise of efficiency.
A government that operates like X—gutting oversight, prioritizing profit over people, and replacing expert leadership with impulsive decision-making—would be a disaster. The institutions Musk derides may not be perfect, but they exist for a reason. Bureaucracy, for all its flaws, provides stability. Stripping it down in the name of efficiency often leads to the opposite: dysfunction, exploitation, and eventual collapse.
What Can Be Done?
Recognizing the pattern is the first step. Enshitification thrives on complacency—whether in digital spaces or governance. When platforms degrade, users must push back. When oversight is stripped away from public institutions, citizens must demand accountability. The best response to those who promise efficiency by dismantling safeguards is to ask: Efficiency for whom? At what cost? And who benefits in the end?
DOGE is real, and it is happening now. Musk’s vision of efficiency is one of consolidation, not progress. If we don’t push back, we may wake up one day to find that enshitification isn’t just an internet phenomenon—it’s a blueprint for the future of governance itself.