Who Would Be the Peacemaker Between Trump and Musk?

In just one week, the relationship between U.S. President Trump and the world's richest person, Elon Musk, has witnessed a stunning reversal from White House allies to social media foes. What started as a policy disagreement escalated within 48 hours into a public spat filled with personal attacks and business threats, causing market turmoil.

Musk, on his owned X platform, publicly denounced Trump's push for the "Big and Beautiful Act," calling it a "disgusting and despicable act." He claimed that if the act passed, it would "destroy America's finances." Trump labeled the billionaire as "crazy" and threatened to cancel his company's federal contracts. Musk retaliated by threatening to retire the crucial Dragon spacecraft supporting the International Space Station. Tesla's stock price plummeted in response.

Related Reading: "Trump and Musk's Epic Showdown, President Lands First Blow Against Arch-Nemesis"

From initial policy collaboration to later being political allies, and eventually tearing each other apart, the rupture in the relationship between Trump and Musk was a multifaceted conflict involving political capital and business interests, personal power and public image, a green future and traditional conservatism. It culminated in a single "act," igniting a chain of events encompassing trust collapse, resource gamesmanship, and power struggles, completely shattering the once-called "Winner's Alliance" short-lived political honeymoon.

Although the Trump-Musk century-level quarrel has entered a full exposure phase, attempts are still being made between Washington and Silicon Valley to salvage this ruptured political-business alliance. After all, with a president wielding billions of votes and a tech giant controlling space, AI, and social platforms, their conflict not only divides the Republican camp but also shakes the future direction of the capital markets and tech policy. The question is, who can mediate between Trump's extreme will and Musk's fanaticism? Who has enough political capital, business acumen, or connections to reconcile rather than further fuel the fire? Now, all eyes are turning to those who could potentially act as peacemakers.

Who Can Bridge the Gap Between Trump and Musk?

Bill Ackman, the billionaire founder of Pershing Square, was the first to come forward, stating that Trump and Musk should prioritize the national interest. He expressed on X, "I support @realDonaldTrump and @elonmusk, they should shake hands and make peace for the good of our great nation. United together, we will be stronger than fighting each other."

Subsequently, Musk commented below this post stating, "You're not wrong," and $TSLA, in response, indicated that he and Trump should reconcile and work together, leading to a 3% overnight price surge.

Currently, there has yet to be a heavyweight figure openly taking sides or attempting to mediate this rare rift. This is not only because the situation is still unfolding, but also because the high-risk nature of politics has prompted many to choose silence.

In contrast, voices from the business and tech sectors are more easily seen as "expressing a position" rather than "declaring factional warfare." Silicon Valley investor, entrepreneur, and thinker Naval Ravikant, co-founder of AngelList, directly stated: "Elon's position is principled, Trump's position is pragmatic. The tech industry is inseparable from the Republican Party at present, and the Republican Party's future is also inseparable from the tech industry. Stop cutting taxes, trim some redundant expenses, and pass the bill."

But the real question is—who can bridge the gap between Trump and Musk? At this cautious moment for everyone, each name on the list carries significant weight:

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

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

3. Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio: Veteran Senators, if they intervene in reconciliation, it may signal party unity.

4. Marc Andreessen: Venture capitalist, has supported Trump in the past, also endorsed Musk, and holds significant influence on tech policy.

5. David Sacks: Deeply connected with Musk, also a moderate GOP donor, served as a tech advisor in the Trump administration, overseeing AI and cryptocurrency policy.

These individuals may have political capital or close relationships with both sides, yet they have not yet made a move.

How does the crypto community view this century-long dispute?

@defi_Boo

Trump, as a monarch, wields the power of language for manipulation, excelling in the "art of possibility." Being inconsistent is one of the characteristics of using this power. From Machiavelli's perspective, honesty never brings any benefits to a ruler. Machiavelli's view is that one of the most important abilities of a ruler is always finding ways to shape illusions that make people believe in him.

Musk, as an entrepreneur, has made building a transparent, authentic environment his organizational mission. He pushes the whole team to expose themselves to the most real issues in order to promptly and effectively solve problems.

The behavioral patterns and problem-solving endowments of these two individuals are very different. If harmonized well, they would be extremely perfect partners. Musk is a great general, akin to Antony, with first-class problem-solving and insight into the essence; Trump is like Caesar, shaping his personal image, using whoever he can use to swiftly rise to the top. JD is a Davos who finds the loopholes.

@Devon_Eriksen_

These people simply cannot understand each other.

Elon Musk is too straightforward. He says whatever comes to his mind, hardly considering others' reactions. He is accustomed to expressing disagreements in public rather than resolving them privately, often alienating allies as a result.

Being an "engineering geek," leading a group of engineering geeks, to lead such a team, you must be one hundred percent honest and transparent.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, is too worldly. He doesn't speak his true thoughts but rather says what is most advantageous for his plans. He also alienates allies, but the reason is that he demands unconditional support while never revealing his strategic intent to them.

Being a New York real estate developer, winning through negotiation, taking advantage of information asymmetry, requires him to be one hundred percent calculating and one hundred percent opaque.

This is how things unfolded:

Musk worked very hard and took on tremendous personal risk to spearhead federal budget balancing. He truly believed that federal overspending posed an existential threat to the nation.

Trump, on the other hand, saw the fiscal savings as a political asset.

As he lacked chips in Congress, he used these fiscal spaces to exchange for other outcomes he valued more, such as border control, the judicial system, and other issues — issues he also considered existential threats to the country.

He may indeed have a balanced medium to long-term budget plan, but what is frustrating is that he will not tell his team about these plans.

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

Musk could also choose to express dissatisfaction privately, but either he was too angry at the time and did not want to communicate, or he tried to communicate but could not reach a consensus.

Trump doesn't know how to deal with "STEM straight males." What they want is the truth, not to read between the lines. They refuse to speculate on unspoken implications and only accept direct and candid communication.

And Musk doesn't know how to deal with "Machiavellian characters." The latter sees language as a tool of power, sneers at those who insist on speaking the truth, considering it childish.

Both are used to being leaders, used to others adapting to their communication styles.

Therefore, they both severely lack the patience and ability to understand each other's language systems.

But the reality is: the out-of-control federal budget and the massive federal bureaucratic system are indeed a dual existential threat to America that must be addressed as a priority.

Trump's judgment of "political feasibility" may be reasonable, but Musk's sense of urgency cannot be underestimated.

When it comes to harnessing the outstanding abilities of people on the autism spectrum, showing no consideration for their special needs is extremely narrow-minded.

Of course, at times, STEM guys can indeed be very stubborn, even if they are not the richest or most successful person in the world.

A few other points worth noting:

The Democratic Party is completely silent on this matter. Strictly speaking, there is no longer a "Democratic Party." They have no real intellectuals, only hired mouthpieces who speak for money.

What is considered a response is just waiting for the "completely natural, grassroots" PR committee to finish its meeting, and then handing out a "completely natural grassroots" check to these "natural grassroots" opinion leaders.

There is also a possibility of the "nothing will happen" camp's judgment—after all, Musk often goes silent after ranting, and Trump can call you anti-Christian today and still work with you tomorrow.