Dismantling US ‘deep state’: What Musk can learn from Mao
Elon Musk, alongside entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, has been tapped to lead a newly created “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) under President-elect Donald Trump. Their mission? To trim federal spending, streamline operations, and eliminate bureaucratic waste. The move is part of Trump’s broader campaign to revolutionize governance and disrupt the “deep state.” While bold, their ambitions bring to mind an infamous historical parallel: Mao Zedong’s disastrous attempt to revolutionize China’s bureaucratic system during the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976).
Also read: ‘President’ or ‘Prime Minister’ Musk?’ Billionaire’s influence sparks debate over unelected power
Why it matters
- Trump’s administration is signaling a full-scale assault on government inefficiency, promising a radical shakeup reminiscent of Mao’s own purge of perceived obstacles to his vision. Mao’s attempt to destroy China’s “deep state” resulted in a decade of chaos, economic paralysis, and institutional dysfunction. Drawing lessons from Mao’s missteps is essential if Musk’s mission is to avoid similar pitfalls.
- The stakes couldn’t be higher. The US government’s national debt exceeds $36 trillion, and federal spending on mandatory programs like Social Security and Medicare is set to skyrocket as the population ages.
- If reforms are mismanaged, the consequences could be catastrophic, leaving the nation unprepared to tackle modern challenges like technological innovation, national security, and global leadership.
The big picture
- According to Minxin Pei, a Bloomberg opinion writer, Mao’s Cultural Revolution began as an ideological crusade against entrenched bureaucracy. Viewing civil servants as obstacles to continuous revolution, Mao unleashed fervent student-led “Red Guards” to root out inefficiency and disloyalty. Government officials were publicly humiliated, imprisoned, or killed, while ministries were gutted. Skilled professionals, including engineers, scientists, and teachers, were sent to rural farms for “re-education.” The resulting talent vacuum crippled China’s governance and economy for decades.
- Chaos over competence: Mao replaced seasoned professionals with untrained ideologues, creating a government unable to manage its basic functions. Industrial output fell by 14.7% in 1967, and administrative paralysis was rampant.
- Lasting damage: Even after Mao’s death, rebuilding China’s administrative capacity took years. A 1980 report revealed that only 10% of officials had the technical training needed for their roles.
Mao lessons for Musk
1. Expertise matters: Don’t sideline technocrats
Mao’s Cultural Revolution dismissed expertise, favoring ideological zeal over competence. Intellectuals and technocrats were humiliated, exiled, or imprisoned, causing a catastrophic loss of institutional knowledge.
Lesson: Expertise and technical knowledge are essential for effective governance. Marginalizing experts creates inefficiencies that can cripple critical systems for years.
2. Beware the dangers of ideological purges
Mao’s paranoia about disloyalty within his administration led to destructive purges. Bureaucrats and officials were targeted in public “struggle sessions” and often replaced with unqualified loyalists. The ensuing chaos paralyzed governance, as factions fought for control instead of focusing on administration.
Lesson: Prioritizing ideological loyalty over competence fosters dysfunction and undermines the stability of institutions.
3. Avoid power struggles and infighting
During the Cultural Revolution, rival factions within Mao’s government spent more time battling each other than governing. Ministries were seized by inexperienced rebels, while officials were sent to labor camps. Governance devolved into a theater of chaos, with no one focused on policymaking or day-to-day administration.
Lesson: Infighting and factionalism derail progress. Leadership must unite teams under clear goals and responsibilities rather than fostering division.
4. Short-term chaos can lead to long-term damage
The decade-long Cultural Revolution left deep scars on China’s bureaucracy. Displaced technocrats returned to find their fields had advanced without them. Training programs and meritocratic promotions had been suspended, leaving the government with a dire skills gap. It took decades for China to rebuild its administrative state.
Lesson: Organizational disruptions often have long-lasting consequences. The damage to talent pipelines and institutional knowledge can take years to repair.
5. Disruption without a plan leads to collapse
Mao’s government failed to manage the disruption it unleashed. Rebels lacked the technical expertise to run complex systems, and their mismanagement caused China’s economy to crumble. The cultural, scientific, and industrial stagnation that followed was a direct result of Mao’s disregard for careful planning and governance.
Lesson: Bold changes require thoughtful implementation. Disruption without a strategy leads to inefficiency, chaos, and collapse.
While Musk and Ramaswamy aren’t dispatching Red Guards to storm the Department of Agriculture, their rhetoric—focused on “draining the swamp” and disrupting Washington’s bureaucratic status quo—echoes the hubris of Mao’s crusade. Both rely on the idea that large, complex systems can be dismantled and reassembled with enough visionary leadership and ideological clarity.
Between the Lines
- Musk’s task is fraught with challenges, both historical and structural. Like Mao, he’s targeting a sprawling bureaucracy resistant to change. But the US legal framework imposes additional constraints that Mao didn’t face.
- Constitutional constraints: Unlike Mao’s unchecked authority, Musk must operate within the bounds of US law. Congress controls federal spending, and the 1974 Impoundment Control Act limits the president’s power to withhold allocated funds.
- Political resistance: Any major reforms will require Congressional cooperation, which is unlikely given the polarized political climate.
- Risk of talent drain: Musk’s proposed “headcount reductions” risk driving skilled professionals out of government, creating a void in technical expertise similar to what China experienced during the Cultural Revolution.
What they’re saying
- Supporters of Musk and Ramaswamy argue that their entrepreneurial approach is precisely what Washington needs. By cutting waste and targeting inefficiency, they believe the government can become leaner and more effective.
- Keith Hall (former Congressional Budget Office director) in New York Times: “Federal spending is unsustainable, but cuts should target areas of clear inefficiency, not across-the-board layoffs.”
- Douglas Holtz-Eakin (former CBO director) in NYT: “Musk’s efficiency measures lack legislative backing. The Department of Government Efficiency risks becoming an underfunded think tank.”
- Critics, however, warn that Musk’s plans are fundamentally flawed.
- Francis Fukuyama (political scientist): “The solution isn’t dismantling government but deregulating the bureaucrats to enable innovation.”
- William Hoagland (Bipartisan Policy Center) in NYT: “Without addressing entitlement programs, you’re not going to make a big dent in our debt and deficits.”
The bottom line
As per a NYT article, the recent fight over a potential government shutdown has revealed the limitations of Musk and Ramaswamy’s ambitious plans to overhaul federal spending using their DOGE platform. Though Musk and Ramaswamy played a key role in torpedoing a sprawling 1,500-page spending bill over objections to excessive “pork,” the streamlined package that passed failed to deliver substantive spending restraint. This episode underscores the difficulty of turning their bold waste-cutting agenda into meaningful change in Washington’s labyrinthine system.
Despite their high-profile role, Musk and Ramaswamy face structural obstacles that limit their ability to implement drastic reforms. The federal government’s budget is dominated by mandatory programs like Social Security and Medicare, which are politically untouchable, while military spending remains a Republican sacred cow. Their target of $2 trillion in cuts—a fraction of the $36 trillion national debt—is dwarfed by projected borrowing of $20 trillion over the next decade. As former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin pointed out, DOGE “has no authorities whatsoever” and is reliant on Congress, which holds the power of the purse, to enact any meaningful changes, the NYT report said.
Moreover, Musk and Ramaswamy’s initiatives risk being undermined by contradictions in the broader Trump administration’s fiscal policies. For example, while they tout efficiency and fraud elimination, efforts to weaken IRS enforcement and expand tax cuts directly inflate deficits, the report added.
As the US grapples with rising debt and a growing need for effective governance, Musk’s success will depend on avoiding Mao’s mistakes: valuing competence over ideology, fostering collaboration over chaos, and ensuring that reforms enhance rather than undermine the government’s ability to serve its citizens. In this high-stakes experiment, the line between efficiency and dysfunction could determine the future of American governance.
(With inputs from agencies)
For more news like this visit TOI. Get all the Latest News, City News, India News, Business News, and Sports News. For Entertainment News, TV News, and Lifestyle Tips visit Etimes
