Elon Musk’s Government Efficiency Drive Sparks GOP Infighting

Elon Musk’s aggressive push to overhaul the federal workforce is facing unexpected pushback—not just from entrenched bureaucrats, but also from political appointees selected by former President Donald Trump.

On February 22nd, Musk, the billionaire entrepreneur and owner of the social media platform X, posted 158 times. But his most consequential message wasn’t on X—it was an email sent to all 2.3 million civilian federal employees. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) ordered them to respond by midnight on February 24th with an approximate five-bullet summary of their accomplishments over the past week. Musk, who has long accused government employees of inefficiency, implied that non-respondents would be considered as having resigned.

Yet the email itself made no mention of resignations, suggesting that the ultimatum lacked legal force. In reality, Musk holds no authority to fire federal employees unilaterally. Agency heads—some appointed by Trump—have reacted with confusion. At the FBI, the Department of Defense, and the State Department, employees have been instructed to ignore the directive. Meanwhile, at the Department of Justice, some staffers were advised to prepare responses. The Treasury Department took a different approach, with an adviser to the secretary, John York, instructing all workers to comply.

A Meme-Inspired Bureaucratic Shake-Up

This email blast is just the latest episode in Musk’s self-styled war on government inefficiency, spearheaded by his Department of Government Efficiency, or “DOGE.” Named after an internet meme featuring a Shiba Inu dog, DOGE’s efforts—though often presented with a tone of irreverence—have had real consequences. At the Conservative Political Action Conference days earlier, Musk appeared alongside Argentina’s libertarian president, Javier Milei, wielding a modified chainsaw and declaring, “I have become meme.” The stunt was symbolic of Musk’s approach—dramatic, disruptive, and occasionally reckless.

So far, Musk’s bureaucratic chainsaw has made only modest cuts. A “deferred resignation” program, offering employees a chance to leave voluntarily, has seen 75,000 takers—about 3% of the federal workforce. By contrast, when Musk implemented a similar tactic at Twitter, nearly a third of employees accepted the exit offer. More significant, though, is the sweeping dismissal of an unclear number of the 200,000 federal employees still on probationary contracts—both new hires and those recently reassigned. This mass termination has already created chaos. At the National Nuclear Security Administration, for instance, the government was forced to reinstate approximately 300 workers after mistakenly firing them.

Cost-Cutting Claims Under Scrutiny

Musk’s drive for efficiency, however, is unlikely to yield substantial financial savings. Civilian payroll expenses account for just 4% of the federal government’s $7 trillion annual budget, with the bulk allocated to retirement benefits, healthcare, and other entitlements. Federal contracts represent a larger share of spending, but DOGE’s efforts to slash them have proven less than effective.

DOGE recently claimed to have canceled $55 billion in federal contracts and posted a so-called “wall of receipts” online. However, scrutiny revealed that the actual value of the listed contracts was only a small fraction of the stated amount. In one glaring error, an $8 billion contract turned out to be worth just $8 million. When confronted, DOGE amended its website to clarify that the list represented only a “subset” of canceled contracts—but the $55 billion figure remained unchanged, with no public documentation to support it.

Even among the genuinely canceled contracts, the impact appears limited. Many of the listed agreements were long-term procurement arrangements, meaning that the stated figures were hypothetical maximums, not actual spending reductions. Additionally, many contracts were terminated under the “convenience” clause, which allows the government to exit agreements early—but still requires payment for work already completed, along with other penalties.

Undermining Government Functionality

Beyond its questionable savings, DOGE’s cuts are affecting critical government functions. At the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), employees were stunned to learn that their subscription to Westlaw—a legal research database essential to their work—had been canceled. Without it, SEC lawyers may be forced to rely on physical legal texts, a regression that contradicts DOGE’s stated mission of efficiency.

Despite the lack of clear financial benefits, DOGE’s real impact may be political rather than economic. The initiative aligns with the vision of Russell Vought, Trump’s former Office of Management and Budget director, who has expressed a desire to make bureaucrats “traumatically affected.” By creating uncertainty and chaos within the federal workforce, Musk and his allies may hope to drive out civil servants opposed to Trump’s agenda, paving the way for more ideologically aligned replacements. Additionally, DOGE’s activities include a push to centralize government IT systems and take control of sensitive data—an effort whose ultimate purpose remains unclear.

Growing Political Backlash

While Musk’s shake-up has thrilled some conservative activists, it is also generating political resistance. Republican lawmakers from districts such as Oshkosh, Wisconsin, and Roswell, Georgia, have been confronted by angry constituents questioning Musk’s unelected power over the government. Polling suggests that public disapproval of Trump is rising, even though his overall ratings remain positive. Meanwhile, some Trump supporters allege that federal workers are engaging in “malicious compliance”—intentionally slowing down essential services to damage the administration’s reputation.

More significantly, Musk is encountering opposition from an unexpected quarter: Trump’s own appointees. While some agency heads remain loyal to the broader goal of reducing government size, others are balking at the disruption caused by DOGE’s haphazard approach. The resistance from within underscores the challenge of balancing ideological purity with functional governance.

As Musk continues his campaign against the federal bureaucracy, the backlash—both from career civil servants and Trump’s own political allies—suggests that his quest to remake Washington may be more complicated than anticipated. The question now is whether DOGE’s disruptions will translate into lasting reform—or merely fuel further dysfunction in an already polarized political landscape.