President- elect Donald Trump’s recent appointments of Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to head the newly proposed Department of Government Efficiency have raised eyebrows across the political and business spectrum. Tasked with reducing government waste and saving taxpayer dollars, both men are undeniably successful entrepreneurs. Yet, their business practices and controversial leadership styles suggest they may be ill-equipped for roles requiring a deep understanding of public service, ethical governance, and the complexities of managing public resources. Rather than streamlining government, Musk and Ramaswamy could end up introducing more chaos and dysfunction.
Elon Musk: Not Fit to be a Government Leader
Elon Musk is often hailed as a visionary for his role in founding companies like Tesla, SpaceX, and X (formerly Twitter). But his management track record reveals troubling tendencies that would undermine the very principles needed to run a government department focused on efficiency and public welfare. Here’s why Musk may be a poor fit for the job:
- Hypocrisy on Government Subsidies
Musk has long criticized government subsidies, calling them a distortion of the free market. However, his companies have been major beneficiaries of public funds. Tesla has received billions in federal subsidies, including electric vehicle tax credits and loans, while SpaceX has secured lucrative government contracts. Musk’s stance on subsidies reflects a troubling inconsistency: while he decries government support, he has no qualms about taking advantage of it when it benefits his bottom line. For someone tasked with managing taxpayer money, this kind of hypocrisy undermines trust in his ability to allocate public resources fairly and effectively. - Securities Fraud and Twitter Turmoil
In 2018, Musk’s infamous tweet about taking Tesla private led to a volatile market reaction and earned him a charge of securities fraud by the SEC. The tweet, which claimed “funding secured” to take the company private, misled investors and caused significant stock market disruption. Musk eventually settled the charges by stepping down as Tesla’s chairman and paying a hefty $20 million fine. This reckless disregard for the rules governing financial markets raises serious concerns about Musk’s judgment and his capacity to responsibly oversee government finances, where transparency and regulation are paramount. - Labor Issues and “Sweatshop” Allegations
Tesla’s Fremont factory has been the site of numerous reports accusing the company of maintaining “inhumane” working conditions. Employees have described excessive overtime, unsafe environments, and unreasonably high productivity demands. While Tesla has denied these claims, such reports highlight Musk’s tendency to prioritize profits over worker welfare. Leadership in government requires a commitment to fairness, transparency, and workers’ rights—qualities Musk’s leadership style has repeatedly failed to demonstrate. - A Chaotic Leadership Style
Musk’s management of Tesla and SpaceX has been marked by an authoritarian style that values results over collaboration. Musk is infamous for firing executives on a whim and berating employees for minor mistakes. At Tesla, reports of a “culture of fear” and employees being terminated without warning paint a picture of an unstable workplace. This “my way or the highway” mentality would be disastrous in a government role, where leadership requires consensus-building, transparency, and respect for diverse perspectives. - Twitter’s Descent into Chaos
Perhaps Musk’s most public failure in leadership came when he acquired Twitter in 2022. Under his stewardship, the platform became a battleground for misinformation, hate speech, and erratic decision-making. Musk’s firing of thousands of employees—including key staff responsible for security, moderation, and policy—led to a collapse in the platform’s trustworthiness. His frequent policy reversals, such as charging users for “verified” status and rebranding the platform as “X,” alienated users, advertisers, and the public. The governance lessons learned from his Twitter debacle suggest that Musk is more interested in disruption for its own sake than in stable, ethical leadership.
Vivek Ramaswamy: A Libertarian with Little Regard for Public Service
Vivek Ramaswamy, a biotech entrepreneur and author, has built his career on championing deregulation and corporate profit. However, his approach to business and government is rooted in the belief that less regulation is always better. In the context of government efficiency, this mindset may be more damaging than beneficial. Here’s why:
- A Libertarian’s Dream, but a Government Nightmare
Ramaswamy has made a name for himself by advocating for deregulation, particularly in industries like healthcare and finance. While deregulation may have some benefits in certain sectors, government operates on a different set of rules. It requires balancing efficiency with public welfare, ensuring fairness, safety, and equity. Ramaswamy’s staunch opposition to regulation could undermine the very safeguards that keep the government accountable to its citizens—resulting in a less efficient, less transparent, and more prone-to-corruption system. - Profits Over Public Good
In his biotech ventures, particularly with his company Roivant Sciences, Ramaswamy has been accused of prioritizing profit over public health. Roivant’s business model has centered on launching “sister companies” to market high-priced drugs with questionable efficacy. Such a corporate-driven, profit-maximizing approach is in direct conflict with the ethos of public service, where policies should be designed to serve the collective good, not corporate interests. Ramaswamy’s willingness to exploit regulatory loopholes for personal gain calls into question his suitability for overseeing public efficiency programs. - Polarizing Rhetoric and Public Division
Ramaswamy has also garnered attention for his polarizing rhetoric, particularly his critique of “woke capitalism” and diversity initiatives. While these positions resonate with some, they also alienate large segments of the population and create deeper societal divides. Leading a government agency demands the ability to unite diverse groups and build consensus across ideological lines. Ramaswamy’s combative stance risks deepening polarization, making it harder to enact policies that actually improve government operations.
The Danger of Appointing Business Tycoons to Government
While Musk and Ramaswamy have demonstrated impressive business acumen, their leadership styles and controversial views suggest they are far more suited to corporate boardrooms than public service. Their track records reflect a preference for disruption, deregulation, and self-interest over ethical governance, public accountability, and the welfare of citizens. These qualities are ill-suited for leading a department tasked with improving government efficiency, where long-term stability, transparency, and fairness are essential.
Appointing business tycoons like Musk and Ramaswamy to oversee a government department could transform the effort to streamline government into a platform for personal agendas and profit-driven priorities. Rather than reducing waste and improving efficiency, they risk introducing chaos, conflict, and dysfunction into the very systems that should be working for the people.
If we are truly serious about making government more efficient, we need leaders who understand the complexities of public service, prioritize the common good over personal gain, and are capable of building trust with the public. Unfortunately, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are not the leaders we need.
By appointing Musk and Ramaswamy, we risk turning the Department of Government Efficiency into yet another venture capital experiment rather than a genuine effort to improve the government’s operations. The stakes are too high for that kind of reckless experimentation. What we need are leaders who can navigate the intricacies of public service with a focus on fairness, transparency, and long-term sustainability—qualities that both Musk and Ramaswamy have yet to demonstrate.
