The False Prophet of Government Efficiency

When a CEO’s companies face multiple federal investigations, recall millions of products and lose billions in market value, we typically don’t herald them as paragons of efficiency. Yet somehow, Elon Musk has been anointed as the architect of federal government reform, a position that would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous.

The numbers tell the story. Tesla’s recent recall of nearly two million vehicles; SpaceX’s string of launch failures; Twitter’s (now X) catastrophic 80% devaluation after Musk’s acquisition, decimating what was once the world’s most accessible public forum. These aren’t the credentials of an efficiency expert, but rather the resume of a chaos agent.

So why entrust government reform to someone who has demonstrated such spectacular failures in managing his own enterprises — enterprises that, ironically, have been propped up by billions in federal contracts and subsidies? SpaceX alone has received hundreds of billions in NASA, Space Development Agency and National Reconnaissance Office contracts, while Tesla has benefited from generous government incentives and tax credits. This supposed crusader against government inefficiency has built his fortune on taxpayer dollars, making his appointment as efficiency czar not just ill-advised but riddled with conflicts of interest. Add in a recent unsolicited $97.4B offer to buy OpenAI and it appears he’s not only trying to corner a market, but the state, as well.

The answer to why he’s been chosen is simple: This was never about efficiency. It’s about control and specifically about helping Donald Trump not just reascend to the presidency, but to help him claim his place as the most powerful president in American history.

What we’re witnessing is an unprecedented attempt to split the traditional role of the president, creating a shadow government that fundamentally alters our constitutional order. While Trump retains the ceremonial position of Head of State, signing executive orders with flourish and basking in symbolic pageantry, Musk has effectively become Head of Government, wielding unprecedented control over federal agencies. 

This arrangement echoes the structure of parliamentary systems, but without any of their democratic safeguards or centuries of constitutional evolution. It would vest enormous administrative power in an unelected tech billionaire who answers to shareholders — if anyone — not voters. This isn’t just unconventional, it’s a constitutional crisis in waiting and one that would short-circuit the carefully designed accountability measures that have preserved American democracy for over two centuries. 

What we don’t need is a self-proclaimed efficiency expert whose own enterprises exemplify the perils of unchecked executive authority.

True efficiency requires accountability, yet accountability is conspicuously absent from this equation. Musk’s track record shows a pattern of evading responsibility while charging forward with disruptive changes and disregard for consequences. The federal government, which serves 335 million Americans, cannot afford such reckless experimentation.

The irony is palpable. The same voices that rail against government overreach now advocate for concentrating unprecedented power in the hands of unelected tech billionaires — or as Dartmouth sociologist Brooke Harrington calls it, “broligarchy.” The same critics who demand government accountability now champion a figure whose own corporate governance has raised serious concerns among shareholders and regulators alike.

American government as we know it isn’t over. Yet. Nor is it completely irreparably damaged from the feckless takeover of Musk and his closer-to-pubescence-than-retirement minions who themselves are unlikely to pass the background check for such federal clearances. The civil service, despite being battered, still maintains its essential functions. But preserving American democracy requires more than just resistance to bad ideas. It demands a positive vision for reform that strengthens rather than dismantles our institutions. It will require repair, reframing and reenvisioning.

States may serve as bulwarks against federal dysfunction, as our system of federalism intended, as a number of governors across the country have banded together in preparation to resist potentially deleterious policy moves from Trump, providing some assurance and hope for stabilization. But we cannot rely solely on state governments to maintain the complex web of services and protections that Americans depend on. The federal government’s role is unique and irreplaceable.

The path forward requires legitimate reform — not demolition — and that reform must come from both institutional change and grassroots pressure. We need thoughtful modernization of our civil service system, stronger protections for career expertise and genuine accountability measures. But we also need an engaged citizenry willing to defend democratic institutions through organized protest, strategic economic pressure on corporate enablers and sustained civic activism. The power of collective action whether through labor unions, consumer boycotts or peaceful demonstration remains our strongest bulwark against autocratic overreach. What we don’t need is a self-proclaimed efficiency expert whose own enterprises exemplify the perils of unchecked executive authority.

The question isn’t whether the federal government needs reform. It’s whether we’ll pursue that reform through democratic processes or surrender it to corporate raiders masquerading as public servants. The stakes couldn’t be higher and the choice couldn’t be clearer.

---

John C. Ronquillo is the founding director of the Institute for Public Leadership and an associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy.