That's the beauty of the current chaos-driven model. No explicit marching orders required. Just let it be known that inconvenient facts/actions can be punished at any time. Self-censorship takes care of the rest.
Half-disagree: Firings aren't their goal (nor, demonstrably, are cost-savings.)
The goal is coercive power over a culture. Firings are just one tool in the toolbox.
______________
Tangentially, loyalty-oaths are another case where the purpose goes beyond the immediate effect.
Fascists presenting an allegiance-or-else choice aren't extending any of their own trust to affirmative pledges. They know it's coerced, and the fact that everybody else knows it too is a feature, not a bug.
Why? Because the real goal is not to create trust for themselves, but to destroy it for everyone else. To survive the purge, victims must scar their own reputations, making it harder for anybody--even other victims--to trust them in the future.
Ex: Even if I'm totally certain Mr. Smith was lying to the fascists when he pledged loyalty to keep his job, there's a "damaged goods" aspect: Would he lie to me if his job was threatened again? What other compromises might he make to other threats from authority?
Despotism does not lead to greatness. Instead we will have big Corps (oil, pharma...) owning, benefiting, and hiding public knowledge. Even China does better these days
