Who will be the peacemaker between Trump and Musk?

Author: shushu

In just one week, the relationship between US President Trump and the world's richest man Elon Musk staged a stunning reversal from White House allies to social media enemies. This dispute, which began with policy differences, quickly escalated into a public war of words full of personal attacks and business threats within 48 hours, causing market shocks.

Musk made a public statement on the X platform he owns, strongly opposing the "Big and Beautiful Act" promoted by Trump, calling it a "disgusting and ugly move." He asserted that if the bill is passed, "it will destroy the US finances." Trump called the billionaire "crazy" and threatened to cancel his company's federal contracts. Musk fought back and wanted to retire the vital Dragon spacecraft that supports the International Space Station. Tesla's stock price plummeted.

From policy cooperation at the beginning, to mutual political alliances later, and then to the final complete break, the breakdown of the relationship between Trump and Musk is a multiple conflict between political capital and commercial interests, personal power and public image, green future and traditional conservatism, which was finally ignited by a "bill", running through the collapse of trust, resource games and power struggles, and completely destroyed this short political honeymoon that was once called the "winner alliance".

Although the century-class quarrel between Trump and Musk has entered the stage of full showdown, there are still people in Washington and Silicon Valley trying to save this broken political and business alliance. After all, a president with hundreds of millions of votes and a technology giant who controls space, AI and social platforms, their conflict not only tore apart the Republican camp, but also shook the future direction of the capital market and technology policy. The question is who can mediate between Trump's extreme will and Musk's paranoid fanaticism? Who has enough political credit, business wisdom or network resources to persuade peace instead of adding fuel to the fire? Now, all eyes are on those who could become "peacemakers."

Who can build a bridge between Trump and Musk?

Billionaire Bill Ackman, founder of Pershing Square, was the first to say that Trump and Musk should put the national interest first. He said on X, "I support @realDonaldTrump and @elonmusk. They should shake hands and make peace for the benefit of our great country. Together, we will be stronger than fighting alone."

Later, Musk left a message under this post saying "You're not wrong". $TSLA rose 3% overnight after this reply and saying that he and Trump should make peace and work together.

At present, no more important figures have publicly taken sides or tried to mediate this rare rift. This is not only because the situation is still fermenting, but also because the high political risks make most people choose to remain silent.

In contrast, the voices from the business and technology circles are more likely to be seen as "expressions of positions" rather than "declarations of factional war." Naval Ravikant, a Silicon Valley investor, entrepreneur and thinker, and co-founder of AngelList, stated directly: "Elon's position is based on principle, and Trump's position is based on reality. The technology industry cannot do without the Republican Party at present, and the Republican Party cannot do without the technology industry in the future. Stop cutting taxes, cut some redundant spending, and pass the bill."

But the real question is - who can build a bridge between Trump and Musk? At this cautious moment, every name on the list is meaningful:

1. Kevin McCarthy: Former Speaker of the House of Representatives, has a good relationship with Musk and has supported technology companies in legislation.

2. Peter Thiel: A core figure of Silicon Valley conservatives, he has complex relationships with both Trump and Musk, and may exert influence behind the scenes.

3. Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio: Senior senators, if they come forward to mediate, it may imply unity within the party.

4. Marc Andreessen: A venture capitalist who once supported Trump and also supported Musk, and has an important influence on technology policy.

5. David Sacks: He has a deep personal relationship with Musk and is also a centrist donor to the Republican Party. He serves as a technology adviser to the Trump administration and is responsible for artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency policies.

These people may have political bargaining chips or have close relationships with both parties, but they have not yet taken action.

What does the crypto community think of this century's quarrel?

@defi_Boo

As a monarch, Trump uses language as a power of manipulation. He is good at the "art of possibility", and going back on one's word is one of the characteristics of using this power. From Machiavelli's perspective, honesty never brings any benefits to the monarch. Machiavelli's view is that one of the most important abilities of a monarch is to always have a way to create an illusion that makes people believe in him.

As an entrepreneur, Musk's organizational mission is to create a transparent and real environment. He wants to push the entire team to expose the most real problems in order to solve problems in a timely and effective manner.

The behavior patterns and problem-solving talents of these two people are very different. If they are well coordinated, they will be an extremely perfect partner. Musk is a general, Antony, with first-class ability to solve problems and insight into the essence; Trump is Caesar, who shapes his personal image and uses people who can be used together to quickly rise to power. JD is Octavian who picked up the leak.

@Devon_Eriksen_

These people simply don’t understand each other.

Elon Musk is too blunt. He says whatever he thinks, with little regard for how others will react. He tends to air his disagreements in public, rather than resolve them privately, and often alienates allies as a result.

Because he’s a “tech guy” who leads a team of tech guys, and to lead a team like that you have to be 100% authentic and transparent.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, is too worldly. He doesn’t say what he really thinks, but what’s best for his agenda. He also alienates allies, but because he demands unconditional support and never reveals his strategic intentions to them.

Because he is a New York real estate developer who wins by negotiation and takes advantage of information asymmetry, this requires him to be 100% calculating and 100% opaque.

Here’s how it went:

Musk worked very hard and took great personal risks to get ahead of the federal budget balance. He truly believes that excessive federal spending is an existential threat to the country.

And Trump sees this fiscal savings as a political asset.

Because he lacks leverage in Congress, he trades this fiscal space for other outcomes that he values ​​more, such as border control, the judicial system, and other issues that he also believes are existential threats to the country.

He may indeed have a medium- to long-term plan to balance the budget, but the frustrating thing is that he won’t tell his team about these plans.

In fact, Trump could have coordinated with Musk privately in advance, but he either took it for granted that Musk should be loyal (treating allies as subordinates) or simply could not convince Musk.

Musk could also choose to express his dissatisfaction in private, but he was either too angry to communicate at the time, or tried to communicate but failed to reach a consensus.

Trump does not know how to deal with "straight science and engineering men". They want the truth, not to read the air to understand the overtones. They refuse to guess the overtones, and they only accept direct and frank communication.

And Musk does not know how to deal with "Machiavellian characters". The latter use language as a tool of power and sneer at those who insist on telling the truth, thinking that it is childish.

Both are used to being leaders and used to others cooperating with their communication style.

Therefore, each of them is extremely lacking in patience and ability to understand the other's language system.

But the reality is: the out-of-control federal budget and the huge federal bureaucracy are indeed dual existential threats to the United States and must be addressed as a priority.

Trump's judgment of "political possibilities" may be reasonable, but Musk's sense of urgency should never be underestimated.

It is extremely narrow-minded to take advantage of the outstanding abilities of people on the autism spectrum without any consideration for their special needs.

Of course, the science and engineering man can sometimes be stubborn, even if he is not the richest and most successful person in the world.

There are also a few points worth noting:

The Democratic Party has remained completely silent on this. Because strictly speaking, there is no "Democratic Party" anymore. They have no real intellectuals, only hired mouthpieces who speak for money.

The so-called response will only appear after the "completely natural, grassroots" public relations committee has held a meeting, and then a "natural grassroots" check is written to these "natural grassroots" opinion leaders.

There is also a possibility that it is the judgment of the "nothing will happen" faction - after all, Musk often remains silent after he gets angry, and Trump can call you the anti-Christ today, and work with you tomorrow.