What The Next Conservative Administration Can Learn About Personnel From Musk’s Twitter Takeover

This past week we were treated to all sorts of drama as Elon Musk effectuated his $44 billion takeover of Twitter. His two major goals, other than some amusing marketing (walking into Twitter headquarters with a sink so that he could make the dad joke: “let that sink in”) and trying to calm the revenue generators (pledging some sort of continued content moderation), were to secure Twitter assets and cleaning house. This approach is critical and should be studied by any future conservative executive branch transition.

In spite of conflicting reports and a few pranksters, it is clear that Elon Musk did lay off some staff last week. Musk had made huge promises, including suggesting that he would be happy to fire 75 percent of staff. Now, however, the target appears to be a much smaller, but still substantial 25 percent.  

Immediately upon taking over the company, he did lay off the top three Twitter officials, including the head lawyer, Vijaya Gadde, whose compensation was reported at about $17 million per year. Rather than relying upon Twitter’s tech team, he did lay off at least some of their engineers and brought in his own team from Tesla to begin learning about the guts of the platform. Finally, he has already been tweeting some indications that he is reviewing internal documents that cast doubt on Twitter’s public posture in legal cases he brought against the company.

All of this provides actionable advice to any future conservative government because Musk’s plans are clear, strategic, and applicable to a takeover of any bureaucracy. He recognizes that he must play in a media environment, that he must bring on his own staff and replace hostile staff, and that he must secure chokepoints and valuable property and processes. He is moving methodically to do just that.

Under any presidential transition, plans are made by industry, campaigns, and outside groups, but these are often policy-heavy. Musk’s Twitter takeover does not seem concerned with policy at all — but rather with control. Future transitions could learn from this. What happens if someone locks the door on presidential transitions, or begin working with the media to damage planning and execution?  What happens if they again slow-walk security clearances, or lie to principals, or even spy on the new administration?

Musk demonstrates both that there is a need to be willing to fire key employees, and a need to be reasonable. As the Chinese have said, “kill the chicken to scare the monkey.” A few key, flashy layoffs are necessary under any new management regime, but they need not be ruthless.

Specifically, Musk appears to be courting Yoel Roth, head of Safety and Integrity, who by all accounts should be fired, but who apparently has some relevance to Musk’s legal battles with the company. Playing nice with Deep State employees can be wise, but it must be transactional: giving Roth a golden parachute in exchange for dirt on the company could be a good play. Similarly, asserting

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases