How Elon Musk cut costs at SpaceX, Tesla, X and what it means for DOGE

Delete, Delete, Delete: The Mantra Behind Elon Musk's Disruptive Leadership and Its Consequences

Elon Musk’s leadership style can be summed up in one simple phrase: delete, delete, delete. Whether it's cutting costs or streamlining operations, Musk has built his empire by aggressively eliminating inefficiencies, even if it means discarding people and processes along the way. 

His approach is evident in the way he has redefined industries like electric vehicles and space exploration, but it has also resulted in significant fallout in the form of layoffs, regulatory pushback, and controversies about workplace conditions. 

At the heart of Musk’s strategy is the philosophy of cutting anything that doesn’t directly contribute to his vision. This strategy has been particularly evident in his work at SpaceX and Tesla, where Musk has driven engineers to innovate under the constraint of minimizing costs. 

For example, at SpaceX, the company replaced $1,500 latches on rockets bound for the International Space Station with modified $30 bathroom stall locks—a move that exemplifies Musk’s dedication to reducing every expense, no matter how trivial it may seem. 

His focus on cost-cutting extends beyond just physical products to the people who work for him. Musk’s radical decisions to slash jobs, as seen during his overhaul of Twitter (now X), have made headlines for their severity and the impact they have had on employees, user experience, and brand stability.

The philosophy behind Musk’s approach is being applied in a broader context through his collaboration with Vivek Ramaswamy in an advisory group to President-elect Donald Trump, known as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The aim of DOGE is to propose ways to trim the federal budget, with the duo promising to cut a massive $2 trillion—about a third of the annual federal budget. 

While such ambitious proposals are common in political rhetoric, the size of the cuts Musk envisions has raised eyebrows. Experts believe that achieving such drastic reductions would be near impossible, especially since large portions of the federal budget are tied up in national security and entitlement programs, which have deep political and social support.

Despite the skepticism, there is a belief among some observers that Musk could, in fact, pull it off. John Graham, a former senior official in the Office of Management and Budget during George W. Bush’s presidency, suggests that Musk’s ability to grasp complex issues and his track record of success in the private sector shouldn’t be underestimated. 

Musk’s ability to move quickly, adapt to new situations, and engage with experts could give him a unique edge in identifying wasteful spending in the federal system. However, many remain doubtful that such sweeping reductions could be achieved without significant political resistance.

Musk’s legacy of cost-cutting is not without consequences. While his companies have achieved remarkable feats—Tesla has become a leader in the electric car market, and SpaceX is preparing to send humans to the Moon—there have been significant trade-offs. One of the more troubling consequences is the safety record at Tesla’s factories. 

Reports from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) have shown that Tesla’s injury rate is significantly higher than that of other car manufacturers, with its flagship California factory experiencing injury rates 30% higher than the industry average, and 80% higher for serious injuries in 2015 and 2016. This raises questions about whether Musk’s drive for efficiency is inadvertently placing workers at risk.

Similarly, Musk’s aggressive restructuring of Twitter, which included mass layoffs and policy changes, has resulted in significant damage to the platform’s reputation. The exodus of users and advertisers, combined with the rise of hate speech and misinformation, led to a loss of billions of dollars in revenue. 

CEO Linda Yaccarino has openly acknowledged the challenges, claiming that the platform’s advertising model has been significantly harmed as a result of Musk’s changes. While Musk’s commitment to cutting costs may have made Twitter more financially efficient in some ways, the social and economic consequences have been severe.

In the end, Musk’s mantra of delete, delete, delete reflects a broader, ruthless approach to business and governance. It is a philosophy rooted in relentless efficiency, but one that often comes at the expense of employees, users, and sometimes even the long-term health of the companies involved. 

As Musk takes on new challenges—whether in the form of government efficiency or further expansion of his empire—there is a growing realization that the consequences of his radical decisions will only become clearer in the years to come. While his drive to innovate and optimize has led to extraordinary successes, it remains to be seen whether the collateral damage of his methods will prove sustainable in the long term.