Elon Musk’s Approach of ‘Move Fast and Break Things’ Conflicts with Washington
The founder of Tesla and SpaceX has a reputation for dismantling existing systems to improve them. This approach is unlikely to sit well with Washington.
TroibNews 
House Republicans find themselves in turmoil after swiftly pushing through a hastily assembled package to fund the government. Tensions with Speaker Mike Johnson are rising, public intraparty disputes among Republicans are emerging, and Democrats are claiming a win, while President-elect Donald Trump seeks to assign some of the blame to Joe Biden for the situation.
The upheaval was largely instigated by Elon Musk. Congress appeared poised to break for the holidays without much disruption until Musk made a flurry of over 150 posts on X, urging House Republicans to reject the proposed bipartisan spending bill and start anew.
For Congress and the broader Washington political landscape, this incident serves as a harbinger of a future where established plans are easily derailed by the whims of the world’s wealthiest individual. For Musk, it is merely another regular day.
The billionaire, appointed by Trump to co-chair a commission labeled “Department of Government Efficiency,” embodies the Silicon Valley principle of “move fast and break things,” even more so than Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, who popularized the phrase. Musk’s affinity for creative destruction and his boldness in taking risks—demonstrated throughout his ventures with SpaceX, Tesla, and Twitter—clash starkly with the slower, more cautious culture of Washington.
This cultural clash has both incited anger among Republicans and yielded a deal that Musk claims aligns better with his vision. It highlights the contrasting perspectives of disruptive entrepreneurs versus government officials regarding their responsibilities in managing a company or a country. Musk’s philosophy of innovation—“if things are not failing, you are not innovating enough”—stands in contrast to the American political system, which often prizes stability over risk-taking.
“Elon Musk is the heir to a long tradition in Silicon Valley of making war on bureaucracy,” says Charles Petersen, historian at the Silicon Valley Archives at Stanford University. “This is the business philosophy of disruption — it’s better to break something than to reform it.”
Musk has publicly criticized the spending bill close to passing in the House as rife with excess. He believes that dismantling the government’s operational framework—chaotic though it may be—is essential to fulfill his goal of reducing government spending in the forthcoming administration.
For years, Musk has proven willing to take significant risks and embrace high-stakes failures—provided there is the potential for a massive reward. Notably, between 2006 and 2008, SpaceX's first three rocket launches culminated in failure, pushing the company and Musk toward bankruptcy. Following that, Musk continued to pursue bold innovations, even at the cost of safety, with reports indicating that worker injuries have increased at SpaceX due to lax safety measures and an overwhelming drive to meet his ambitious targets.
As Musk has advanced the Starship spacecraft, many of his testing phases have culminated in explosive failures. When facing public criticism stemming from these incidents, Musk often downplays concerns and increases his risk-taking. After one setback, he quipped on Twitter, “So … how was your night?” accompanying it with a video of his rocket disintegrating.
For SpaceX, failure is just part of the innovation process. When designs falter, the team can analyze what went wrong and improve. The belief is that breaking some rockets is part of a necessary progression towards significant breakthroughs.
Tesla has followed a similar pattern. Despite facing bankruptcy in 2008, the company has regularly experienced rapid innovations resulting in public setbacks. In 2023, Tesla faced chronic failure issues, recently recalling 700,000 vehicles, but managed to rectify the situation through an over-the-air software update, sparing drivers from visiting service centers.
Musk constantly tests the limits of acceptable risk. “It’s what many [tech startups] are always navigating,” Petersen observes. “How much can you break something before it truly breaks?”
Musk’s ventures in Tesla and SpaceX have established his status as the wealthiest individual globally. However, his acquisition of Twitter has yielded a different narrative. Rapid staff layoffs following his takeover caused numerous bugs on the platform, particularly during Ron DeSantis’ presidential campaign kickoff, when Twitter Spaces experienced a major failure.
Musk’s approach to the platform, merging personal political beliefs with the business agenda, has also pushed advertisers away.
Despite the 72% drop in the value of his Twitter investment, it’s challenging to label it a total failure. The platform has become a formidable vehicle for Musk, allowing him to engage more deeply in politics and potentially influencing federal regulators with oversight over his diverse business interests.
Musk is still acclimating to the dynamics of Washington. In early December, X CEO Linda Yaccarino unveiled an updated version of the Kids Online Safety Act, encouraging Congress to support it. Musk endorsed the legislation, emphasizing that “Protecting kids should always be priority #1,” but House Speaker Mike Johnson dismissed it, cautioning that it “might lead to further censorship by the government of valid conservative voices.”
Musk is unaccustomed to such pushback. Within his companies, he typically identifies and swiftly addresses problems in a top-down manner. “Basically, what Elon does is he shows up every week at each of his companies, he identifies the biggest problem that the company's having that week and he fixes it,” noted Marc Andreessen, a venture capitalist and Trump supporter. “And he does that every week for 52 weeks in a row, and then each of his companies has solved the 52 biggest problems that year.”
Now, Musk contends with more than just a workforce of subordinates; he faces co-equal branches of government. He must persuade various stakeholders, each with their own authority, to align with his objectives. The stakes are markedly higher—any dysfunction within government bureaucracy can adversely affect millions of Americans reliant on essential services.
To achieve his aims of reducing government spending, Musk will need a nuanced understanding of the administrative state he has antagonized and navigated recklessly for years. “He’s clearly displayed a lack of concern around regulation. Think about PayPal with finance, Tesla with auto, SpaceX with transportation and launching things into space,” comments Jonathan Kerstein, a general partner at Centre Street Partners, a tech-focused investment firm.
Throughout the transition, Musk has imposed his presence in Washington, making bold declarations about impending reforms. However, to properly succeed in these ambitions, he will require cooperation from segments of the bureaucracy he has been designated to disrupt.
In Tesla and SpaceX’s formative stages, Musk purported that both endeavors had only about a 10 percent chance of success. Surpassing those odds propelled Musk to Silicon Valley prominence. However, betting heavily on government disruption—while advocating that failure is a precursor to success—won’t necessarily enhance his reputation in this realm. Quite the opposite may ensue.
In governance, the repercussions of failure can translate to real human suffering. Failures have the potential to rapidly erode public support—this dynamic differs significantly from the tech industry, where setbacks can occur on the path to eventual triumph.
“[Musk] has goals. There are things he wants the government to do,” Petersen observes. “You can’t achieve these things if you just burn it all down.”
Aarav Patel contributed to this report for TROIB News
The upheaval was largely instigated by Elon Musk. Congress appeared poised to break for the holidays without much disruption until Musk made a flurry of over 150 posts on X, urging House Republicans to reject the proposed bipartisan spending bill and start anew.
For Congress and the broader Washington political landscape, this incident serves as a harbinger of a future where established plans are easily derailed by the whims of the world’s wealthiest individual. For Musk, it is merely another regular day.
The billionaire, appointed by Trump to co-chair a commission labeled “Department of Government Efficiency,” embodies the Silicon Valley principle of “move fast and break things,” even more so than Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, who popularized the phrase. Musk’s affinity for creative destruction and his boldness in taking risks—demonstrated throughout his ventures with SpaceX, Tesla, and Twitter—clash starkly with the slower, more cautious culture of Washington.
This cultural clash has both incited anger among Republicans and yielded a deal that Musk claims aligns better with his vision. It highlights the contrasting perspectives of disruptive entrepreneurs versus government officials regarding their responsibilities in managing a company or a country. Musk’s philosophy of innovation—“if things are not failing, you are not innovating enough”—stands in contrast to the American political system, which often prizes stability over risk-taking.
“Elon Musk is the heir to a long tradition in Silicon Valley of making war on bureaucracy,” says Charles Petersen, historian at the Silicon Valley Archives at Stanford University. “This is the business philosophy of disruption — it’s better to break something than to reform it.”
Musk has publicly criticized the spending bill close to passing in the House as rife with excess. He believes that dismantling the government’s operational framework—chaotic though it may be—is essential to fulfill his goal of reducing government spending in the forthcoming administration.
For years, Musk has proven willing to take significant risks and embrace high-stakes failures—provided there is the potential for a massive reward. Notably, between 2006 and 2008, SpaceX's first three rocket launches culminated in failure, pushing the company and Musk toward bankruptcy. Following that, Musk continued to pursue bold innovations, even at the cost of safety, with reports indicating that worker injuries have increased at SpaceX due to lax safety measures and an overwhelming drive to meet his ambitious targets.
As Musk has advanced the Starship spacecraft, many of his testing phases have culminated in explosive failures. When facing public criticism stemming from these incidents, Musk often downplays concerns and increases his risk-taking. After one setback, he quipped on Twitter, “So … how was your night?” accompanying it with a video of his rocket disintegrating.
For SpaceX, failure is just part of the innovation process. When designs falter, the team can analyze what went wrong and improve. The belief is that breaking some rockets is part of a necessary progression towards significant breakthroughs.
Tesla has followed a similar pattern. Despite facing bankruptcy in 2008, the company has regularly experienced rapid innovations resulting in public setbacks. In 2023, Tesla faced chronic failure issues, recently recalling 700,000 vehicles, but managed to rectify the situation through an over-the-air software update, sparing drivers from visiting service centers.
Musk constantly tests the limits of acceptable risk. “It’s what many [tech startups] are always navigating,” Petersen observes. “How much can you break something before it truly breaks?”
Musk’s ventures in Tesla and SpaceX have established his status as the wealthiest individual globally. However, his acquisition of Twitter has yielded a different narrative. Rapid staff layoffs following his takeover caused numerous bugs on the platform, particularly during Ron DeSantis’ presidential campaign kickoff, when Twitter Spaces experienced a major failure.
Musk’s approach to the platform, merging personal political beliefs with the business agenda, has also pushed advertisers away.
Despite the 72% drop in the value of his Twitter investment, it’s challenging to label it a total failure. The platform has become a formidable vehicle for Musk, allowing him to engage more deeply in politics and potentially influencing federal regulators with oversight over his diverse business interests.
Musk is still acclimating to the dynamics of Washington. In early December, X CEO Linda Yaccarino unveiled an updated version of the Kids Online Safety Act, encouraging Congress to support it. Musk endorsed the legislation, emphasizing that “Protecting kids should always be priority #1,” but House Speaker Mike Johnson dismissed it, cautioning that it “might lead to further censorship by the government of valid conservative voices.”
Musk is unaccustomed to such pushback. Within his companies, he typically identifies and swiftly addresses problems in a top-down manner. “Basically, what Elon does is he shows up every week at each of his companies, he identifies the biggest problem that the company's having that week and he fixes it,” noted Marc Andreessen, a venture capitalist and Trump supporter. “And he does that every week for 52 weeks in a row, and then each of his companies has solved the 52 biggest problems that year.”
Now, Musk contends with more than just a workforce of subordinates; he faces co-equal branches of government. He must persuade various stakeholders, each with their own authority, to align with his objectives. The stakes are markedly higher—any dysfunction within government bureaucracy can adversely affect millions of Americans reliant on essential services.
To achieve his aims of reducing government spending, Musk will need a nuanced understanding of the administrative state he has antagonized and navigated recklessly for years. “He’s clearly displayed a lack of concern around regulation. Think about PayPal with finance, Tesla with auto, SpaceX with transportation and launching things into space,” comments Jonathan Kerstein, a general partner at Centre Street Partners, a tech-focused investment firm.
Throughout the transition, Musk has imposed his presence in Washington, making bold declarations about impending reforms. However, to properly succeed in these ambitions, he will require cooperation from segments of the bureaucracy he has been designated to disrupt.
In Tesla and SpaceX’s formative stages, Musk purported that both endeavors had only about a 10 percent chance of success. Surpassing those odds propelled Musk to Silicon Valley prominence. However, betting heavily on government disruption—while advocating that failure is a precursor to success—won’t necessarily enhance his reputation in this realm. Quite the opposite may ensue.
In governance, the repercussions of failure can translate to real human suffering. Failures have the potential to rapidly erode public support—this dynamic differs significantly from the tech industry, where setbacks can occur on the path to eventual triumph.
“[Musk] has goals. There are things he wants the government to do,” Petersen observes. “You can’t achieve these things if you just burn it all down.”
Aarav Patel contributed to this report for TROIB News
