By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following the 2024 election, President Trump established the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a presidential advisory committee headed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, ostensibly to improve governmental efficiency. However, DOGE lacks real power and authority, existing primarily as a symbolic gesture. Musk’s subsequent online harassment of federal employees, particularly women, suggests a lack of confidence in DOGE’s ability to achieve its stated goals and instead reflects a desire for indirect control through intimidation. This behavior reveals the underlying motivations as less about genuine reform and more about projecting personal insecurities onto those who represent competence and public service. Ultimately, Musk’s actions expose the weakness inherent in such bullying tactics.
Read the original article here
Elon Musk’s recent Twitter harassment of federal employees, primarily women seemingly selected at random due to their job titles, strongly suggests his “DOGE” initiative is far weaker than he publicly portrays. The very act of resorting to online bullying hints at a lack of confidence in the actual power of the Department of Government Efficiency. Instead of utilizing legitimate channels to enact change, Musk is engaging in a transparent attempt to intimidate these individuals into resignation.
This behavior reveals a deeper insecurity. The creation of DOGE, a presidential advisory committee with limited real power, rather than an actual government department, already underscores a lack of genuine influence. Its playful name, a reference to the Dogecoin cryptocurrency, further diminishes its perceived seriousness. The name itself feels more like a publicity stunt than a serious political endeavor, and its lack of compensated positions or concrete authority supports this assessment.
Musk’s Twitter actions expose his awareness of DOGE’s inherent weakness. If he genuinely believed DOGE possessed the authority to make significant changes or dismiss employees, he wouldn’t need to resort to personal attacks. His online harassment campaign, targeting individuals with the apparent goal of driving them from their positions, is a desperate attempt to exert power where none formally exists. It’s a clear sign of overcompensation, mirroring the childish behavior of someone trying to reclaim control after discovering their initial plan has fallen short. It is an act of aggression born not of strength, but from a deep-seated fear of irrelevance.
The inherent vulnerability of this strategy is evident in the fact that his actions are more likely to backfire and cause increased scrutiny of DOGE, instead of achieving his desired outcome. The public outcry generated by his behavior directly undermines any credibility or authority the committee might have hoped to maintain. This approach contradicts any genuine commitment to governmental efficiency or effective reform, demonstrating a focus instead on personal power dynamics and aggressive intimidation tactics.
The casual nature of the targets only further strengthens this argument. The targeting of seemingly random federal employees, especially women, suggests a lack of a focused strategy, emphasizing instead personal animosity and a desire for personal retribution. This impulsive approach further underscores a sense of desperation and a reliance on the toxic response he often cultivates among his followers. It suggests that this is less about implementing effective policy, and far more about feeding his ego and maintaining a sense of control.
Moreover, Musk’s harassment of federal employees suggests he recognizes the temporary nature of his potential influence. His actions seem predicated on a short-term power grab rather than genuine long-term structural reform. It points to a feeling of impending loss of influence, especially given reports suggesting Trump is already losing interest in his constant presence. His actions appear designed to maximize whatever leverage he has in this fleeting window of potential power.
The pattern of behavior strongly suggests that Elon Musk’s public persona of confidence and power is a carefully constructed façade concealing anxieties about his ability to achieve his political aims. The DOGE initiative is less a serious political project and more of a thinly veiled attempt to maintain relevance, which has been exposed through this outburst of online harassment. His actions reveal an individual clinging to power through intimidation rather than competence or legitimate influence. The childishness of the tactics highlights a profound sense of insecurity, underlining the gap between his projected image and the reality of his power.
The whole situation plays out like a very expensive and public tantrum. It’s a desperate attempt to assert dominance using tactics that reveal a remarkable lack of actual power or strategy. His aggressive actions underscore not strength, but a deep-seated fear of irrelevance and a profound lack of understanding about how to genuinely impact the political landscape beyond the superficial attention grab that online harassment provides. The whole DOGE affair, and its attendant drama, serves less as a genuine attempt at effective political action, and more as a revealing, if somewhat pathetic, display of unchecked power and its corresponding insecurities.