He Has Observed Silicon Valley Dismantling Firms for Years. Now, He's Issuing an Alert to Washington.
A technology expert shares insights into Elon Musk's strategies regarding DOGE.
TroibNews 
Washington is grappling with the rapid changes brought about by Elon Musk and his engineering team within the executive branch, particularly through the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). They have utilized this office's mandate to trigger extensive layoffs, eliminate entire federal programs, and instill a sense of anxiety among employees in one of the world’s largest bureaucracies.
What exactly motivates Musk's Department of Government Efficiency?
Insiders in Washington often interpret DOGE's actions through a policy or ideological lens—viewing it as a push for “major reform,” potential personal gain, an effort to dismantle the administrative state, or a strategy to centralize power in the White House. Others speculate it could also be a maneuver to sidestep investigations into Musk’s various ventures.
However, some tech industry observers argue this perspective misses the essence of the movement.
“It’s not a technical victory, but a cultural victory,” says Rohit Krishnan, a Bay Area engineer, economist, and venture capitalist steeped in Silicon Valley’s business ethos.
The dominant digital platforms in America emerged from a culture that prioritizes aggressive engineering and disruption over stability. Investors and engineers in this realm have historically believed they could improve government operations if given the opportunity.
Krishnan views Musk as a quintessential Silicon Valley disruptor – an individual with a history of establishing, acquiring, and fundamentally restructuring companies – now positioned in Washington with expansive authority to implement his vision.
So, what does this mean for Washington, and why is it occurring in this manner?
Krishnan elaborated on how DOGE’s approach, which prioritizes speed and direct action over process, contrasts with previous administrations’ efforts to trim waste. He compared it to the disruptive strategies employed by startups like Uber when navigating bureaucracies.
This conversation has been condensed for brevity and clarity.
What should Washington understand about DOGE’s methodology?
At its core, DOGE perceives governmental challenges more as business problems than governance issues.
In traditional regulatory contexts, solutions tend to be process-driven, where compliance with established protocols yields results that, while imperfect, satisfy most parties involved. However, DOGE’s methodology requires rapid, decisive action—drawing parallels to how Elon Musk approached his management of Twitter. The expectation is that while some entities may falter during the transition, the eventual outcome will be a more streamlined and efficient government, despite the recognition that government functions quite differently from a business.
Many have long desired a more business-like government. Is DOGE meeting that expectation, or are Musk and his young team charting a different course?
The most significant distinction is their commitment to technology, data, and speed.
The emphasis on their youth obscures the bigger picture. They operate like a McKinsey team: technically young, yet the intellectual heavy lifting comes from those orchestrating the processes. They analyze vast amounts of data to uncover spending patterns, asking straightforward questions that might have complex answers. This results in a rough ranking of efficiency to identify and address areas of waste.
Applying this approach to government is novel, given its inherent complexities and potential ramifications—like funding for cancer research or global AIDS assistance.
While previous administrations might have formed commissions to address inefficiencies—often resulting in diluted recommendations—DOGE is pushing against such procedural norms, believing that bold actions can be taken without the constraints of bureaucracy.
This situation is reminiscent of Uber’s challenge to governance in cities burdened by traditional taxi regulations. As Krishnan describes, "Uber helped popularize the idea that you can bulldoze your way through bad regulations and come out at the other end with something resembling a really good outcome.”
From his observation of DOGE's progress, Krishnan notes that while accomplishments may not significantly impact the federal budget, the disruption they've caused in perceptions of government operations is notable. “It’s not a technical victory, but a cultural victory,” he adds, highlighting the shift in attitudes toward governance, achieved in a remarkably short time.
What might be the ultimate impact of DOGE’s approach on the federal budget and culture?
Some norms tied to the operations of various government agencies may not have clear rationales. This raises questions about their ongoing relevance and effectiveness, particularly as stakeholders express growing concern over items like NIH funding. The rapid changes instigated by DOGE do bear weighty implications for those reliant on government support.
Interestingly, some of the notable revelations from DOGE stem from existing public databases rather than Musk’s insider access, serving as a form of journalistic achievement rather than a conventional procedural success.
What challenges come with a business-focused approach?
Despite the belief that running agencies like the DMV could be more efficient, the essential truth remains that government services are designed to cater to a diverse populace. This necessity complicates efforts to streamline operations, as one cannot simply prioritize the most straightforward cases and cut costs.
The assertion that the tech sector can effectively govern invites scrutiny. It encourages interrogating fundamental operations within various agencies, revealing issues such as fraud and waste, and fostering debates about whether long-standing practices can be justifiably overhauled.
Contrasting the DOE’s methods with traditional oversight reveals the inertia of regular auditing processes, which often culminate in little real change. The challenge lies in determining whether meaningful reform is achievable without adopting the disruptive tactics championed by Musk.
While this approach may be jarring, it challenges the enduring norms surrounding governance and poses broader questions about what effective government operation should look like in today's context.
Frederick R Cook contributed to this report for TROIB News
What exactly motivates Musk's Department of Government Efficiency?
Insiders in Washington often interpret DOGE's actions through a policy or ideological lens—viewing it as a push for “major reform,” potential personal gain, an effort to dismantle the administrative state, or a strategy to centralize power in the White House. Others speculate it could also be a maneuver to sidestep investigations into Musk’s various ventures.
However, some tech industry observers argue this perspective misses the essence of the movement.
“It’s not a technical victory, but a cultural victory,” says Rohit Krishnan, a Bay Area engineer, economist, and venture capitalist steeped in Silicon Valley’s business ethos.
The dominant digital platforms in America emerged from a culture that prioritizes aggressive engineering and disruption over stability. Investors and engineers in this realm have historically believed they could improve government operations if given the opportunity.
Krishnan views Musk as a quintessential Silicon Valley disruptor – an individual with a history of establishing, acquiring, and fundamentally restructuring companies – now positioned in Washington with expansive authority to implement his vision.
So, what does this mean for Washington, and why is it occurring in this manner?
Krishnan elaborated on how DOGE’s approach, which prioritizes speed and direct action over process, contrasts with previous administrations’ efforts to trim waste. He compared it to the disruptive strategies employed by startups like Uber when navigating bureaucracies.
This conversation has been condensed for brevity and clarity.
What should Washington understand about DOGE’s methodology?
At its core, DOGE perceives governmental challenges more as business problems than governance issues.
In traditional regulatory contexts, solutions tend to be process-driven, where compliance with established protocols yields results that, while imperfect, satisfy most parties involved. However, DOGE’s methodology requires rapid, decisive action—drawing parallels to how Elon Musk approached his management of Twitter. The expectation is that while some entities may falter during the transition, the eventual outcome will be a more streamlined and efficient government, despite the recognition that government functions quite differently from a business.
Many have long desired a more business-like government. Is DOGE meeting that expectation, or are Musk and his young team charting a different course?
The most significant distinction is their commitment to technology, data, and speed.
The emphasis on their youth obscures the bigger picture. They operate like a McKinsey team: technically young, yet the intellectual heavy lifting comes from those orchestrating the processes. They analyze vast amounts of data to uncover spending patterns, asking straightforward questions that might have complex answers. This results in a rough ranking of efficiency to identify and address areas of waste.
Applying this approach to government is novel, given its inherent complexities and potential ramifications—like funding for cancer research or global AIDS assistance.
While previous administrations might have formed commissions to address inefficiencies—often resulting in diluted recommendations—DOGE is pushing against such procedural norms, believing that bold actions can be taken without the constraints of bureaucracy.
This situation is reminiscent of Uber’s challenge to governance in cities burdened by traditional taxi regulations. As Krishnan describes, "Uber helped popularize the idea that you can bulldoze your way through bad regulations and come out at the other end with something resembling a really good outcome.”
From his observation of DOGE's progress, Krishnan notes that while accomplishments may not significantly impact the federal budget, the disruption they've caused in perceptions of government operations is notable. “It’s not a technical victory, but a cultural victory,” he adds, highlighting the shift in attitudes toward governance, achieved in a remarkably short time.
What might be the ultimate impact of DOGE’s approach on the federal budget and culture?
Some norms tied to the operations of various government agencies may not have clear rationales. This raises questions about their ongoing relevance and effectiveness, particularly as stakeholders express growing concern over items like NIH funding. The rapid changes instigated by DOGE do bear weighty implications for those reliant on government support.
Interestingly, some of the notable revelations from DOGE stem from existing public databases rather than Musk’s insider access, serving as a form of journalistic achievement rather than a conventional procedural success.
What challenges come with a business-focused approach?
Despite the belief that running agencies like the DMV could be more efficient, the essential truth remains that government services are designed to cater to a diverse populace. This necessity complicates efforts to streamline operations, as one cannot simply prioritize the most straightforward cases and cut costs.
The assertion that the tech sector can effectively govern invites scrutiny. It encourages interrogating fundamental operations within various agencies, revealing issues such as fraud and waste, and fostering debates about whether long-standing practices can be justifiably overhauled.
Contrasting the DOE’s methods with traditional oversight reveals the inertia of regular auditing processes, which often culminate in little real change. The challenge lies in determining whether meaningful reform is achievable without adopting the disruptive tactics championed by Musk.
While this approach may be jarring, it challenges the enduring norms surrounding governance and poses broader questions about what effective government operation should look like in today's context.
Frederick R Cook contributed to this report for TROIB News
