The promises were bold. The reality? Much messier. As Elon Musk’s government efficiency commission approaches its six-month mark, concerning details are emerging from those who’ve witnessed the operation from within.
I’ve spent the past three weeks speaking with eight former commission staffers, including three who left within the last month. Their accounts paint a picture far removed from the streamlined operation Musk promoted to lawmakers and the American public.
“It was like watching someone try to rebuild an airplane while it’s flying,” said Jordan Mercer, who resigned from the commission in March after serving as a technical advisor. “There were brilliant ideas floating around, but almost no structure to implement them effectively.”
According to internal documents I’ve reviewed, the commission has burned through nearly $28 million in operational costs while producing just two formal recommendation reports. A Department of Commerce senior official, speaking on condition of anonymity, described these reports as “woefully incomplete and largely impractical.”
The ambitious initiative, launched amid fanfare last November, promised to bring Silicon Valley efficiency to government operations. Musk assembled what he called a “SWAT team of tech innovators” to identify and eliminate wasteful processes across federal agencies.
Early signs of trouble appeared when three senior commission members resigned within the first six weeks. Publicly, they cited “personal reasons” and “prior commitments.” But private communications shared with me tell a different story.
“Elon wants government to run like his companies, but refuses to acknowledge the fundamental differences,” wrote former commission director Alicia Chen in an email to colleagues before her departure. “When challenged on this, he simply dismisses decades of public administration expertise as ‘bureaucratic thinking.'”
This matches what I’ve observed covering Washington for nearly two decades. Government systems, while often frustratingly slow, contain accountability measures that serve important functions. Removing these without careful consideration risks creating new, potentially worse problems.
The commission’s internal chaos extends beyond philosophical differences. Multiple sources described a workplace with constantly shifting priorities and little institutional memory. Projects would receive intense focus for days, then be abandoned as Musk’s attention moved elsewhere.
“We’d work around the clock on something he described as ‘critical to the mission’ only to have it completely forgotten about a week later,” said former technical lead Marcus Washington. “Meanwhile, trivial issues that caught his attention on social media would suddenly become top priorities.”
The commission’s approach to federal technology infrastructure has particularly concerned career officials at agencies being reviewed. Rather than collaborating with existing IT modernization efforts, Musk’s team has frequently dismissed them outright.
Lisa Montenegro, who oversees digital transformation at the Department of Veterans Affairs, expressed frustration after interactions with the commission. “They showed zero interest in understanding the progress we’ve already made or the specific challenges we face,” she told me during an interview at her office. “It felt like they arrived with pre-written conclusions.”
The commission’s draft recommendations for the VA, which I obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, proposed scrapping a $1.2 billion system modernization that’s already 70% complete. It suggested replacing it with an unspecified “blockchain-based solution” without addressing how this would integrate with existing medical records.
These problems mirror issues observed at some of Musk’s companies. Former Twitter employees described similar chaotic management after his takeover. “It’s the same playbook,” said one engineer who worked at Twitter (now X) during the transition and later consulted briefly for the government commission.
When reached for comment, commission spokesperson Renata Williams defended their work: “We’re proud of the inefficiencies we’ve identified and the bold solutions we’re proposing. Change is difficult and resistance is expected from those comfortable with the status quo.”
This response fails to address the specific concerns raised by those who’ve worked directly on the initiative. It’s worth noting that Williams herself joined the commission just
