JD Vance silence on Musk may be the most Game of Thrones tactic ever — and Trump might not even notice
The kingdom is in turmoil, the great Houses of Musk and Trump at war, and their subjects forced to choose sides.
But as the scheming Littlefinger in Game of Thrones famously said as he plotted to take the King's place: 'chaos is a ladder.'
And so it is for JD Vance, the ostensibly loyal vice president, and perhaps the person who stands to benefit the most from the chaos unleashed by the feud between Elon Musk and Donald Trump — which is perhaps why he's remaining uncharacteristically subdued.
Vance has never been one to shy away from a fight, especially an online one, especially if it's in defense of his boss.
He once launched a 400-word diatribe against historian Niall Ferguson for criticizing Trump's Ukraine policy, slamming his 'moralistic garbage' and 'historical illiteracy.'
He had no problem accusing senior members of his own party of 'pettiness' for voting against what Trump wanted, and mocked world leaders who've had run ins with the president.
The practicing Catholic even found himself on the wrong side of the Pope himself when he got into another online beef with British politician Rory Stewart over Trump's deportation policies.
So one would expect the online warrior to rush to the defense of his president in response to the firestorm of abuse unleashed by Musk against the president on Thursday, which began with accusations of ungratefulness and ended with claims of him being close to Jeffrey Epstein.
But Vance has been remarkably quiet. His only public comment at the time of writing has been the kind of terse statement a wife gives in support of a cheating politician spouse.
'President Trump has done more than any person in my lifetime to earn the trust of the movement he leads. I'm proud to stand beside him,' Vance wrote on X.
The next day, he continued with his lawyerly posts.
'There are many lies the corporate media tells about President Trump. One of the most glaring is that he's impulsive or short-tempered. Anyone who has seen him operate under pressure knows that's ridiculous,' he wrote.
'It's (maybe) the single biggest disconnect between fake media perception and reality,' he went on.
Where was the combative Vance who demanded the Ukrainian president say thank you to his boss in the Oval Office? The one who told Kamala Harris to 'go to hell' over the Biden administration's handling of the withdrawal from Afghanistan?
Instead, Vance did not utter Musk's name in the 24 hours since the feud burst into the open.
Vance was asked by Trump to remain diplomatic in his dealings with Musk, The Independent learned from a source familiar with the situation.
Regardless, the VP has other motivations for keeping quiet.
For years, he has been dogged by rumors of dual loyalties between the tech billionaires who fueled his rise and the president he now serves.
Vance first came to public attention as the best-selling author of Hillbilly Elegy, a memoir of a rough Appalachian upbringing that many liberals praised as an intellectual explanation of Trump's appeal to the white working class.
But before that book set him on a path to Congress and the Senate, he was already being courted by a set of right-wing tech billionaires known as the 'PayPal mafia' — the billionaires Musk, David Sacks and Peter Thiel, who worked together at the pioneering online payments company back in the late Nineties and early Noughties and were bound together by a belief in deregulation, libertarianism and later, by darker right-wing ideology that railed against multiculturalism.
Vance was working in venture capital at the time and went to work for Thiel at his San Francisco investment house, Mithril Capital.
Thiel would be instrumental to Vance's rise, backing his campaign for Senate in 2021-22 to the tune of $15 million, and reportedly introduced Vance to Trump.
The trio of Musk, Sacks and Thiel were instrumental in convincing Trump to choose Vance as his running mate, seeing in him an ideological ally, the libertarian tech investor who could one day take over as president.
Some have gone so far as to call Vance a Manchurian Candidate for the tech elite.
When the feud between Musk and Trump spilled out into the open, Musk was not shy about announcing his desire for Vance to take over as president.
He responded to a tweet calling for Trump to be impeached and replaced with Vance with one word: 'Yes.'
That is not an empty threat.
Vance's path to the White House would inevitably require the support of Musk, the man who spent $395 million on electing Republicans in 2024.
So his decision to ignore Musk's call for mutiny is an interesting — and calculated — choice.
Much like Littlefinger, Vance has made sharp ideological turns and formed strategic alliances to find his way to within arm's length of the throne. He was once vehemently opposed to Trump, only to radically change course to stand by his side in his quest for power.
But, spoiler alert, his fictional counterpart's calculating and maneuvering didn't end well for him.
Trump spent his entire first term weeding out traitors, and claims to have gotten very good at it over the years. Will he be able to sniff out Vance?
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
25 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Trump Says Steel and Aluminum Tariffs Will Double to 50%
WEST MIFFLIN, Pa.—President Trump said he would double tariffs on imported steel, a move he said would bolster the domestic industry and protect U.S. jobs. Trump announced the higher duties at a rally near Pittsburgh promoting a $14 billion deal between Tokyo-based Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel, which the president said would ensure U.S. control over the storied steelmaker.
Wall Street Journal
25 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Trump's New Steel Tariffs Look Vulnerable to a Courtroom Challenge
U.S. steelmaker shares soared on news of President Trump's new tariffs. But are these tariffs as bulletproof as investors seem to believe? The steel tariffs, like those on autos and auto parts, are sector-based. They differ in that respect from the 'Liberation Day' tariffs Trump unveiled in April. The U.S. Court of International Trade in May blocked Trump's tariffs on U.S. trading partners, rejecting the argument that he could invoke emergency powers to set the country-by-country tariffs. An appeals court stayed that ruling, pending its own review. The conventional wisdom in the markets has been that Trump's recent sector-based tariffs are on firmer legal footing. That might not be the case, though. In fact, there is reason to believe his new 50% tariff on imported steel could be vulnerable to a legal challenge. To speed up the process, Trump piggybacked on the findings of a national-security investigation by the Commerce Department in 2018, during his first term. The question now is whether the findings were too stale to be the basis for a new tariff hike, and thus whether Trump should have sought a new national-security investigation first. Going that route would have delayed his CLF 7.04%increase; green up pointing triangle is up 30% since Trump announced his new tariff plans May 30. Nucor NUE 2.37%increase; green up pointing triangle and Steel Dynamics STLD 1.11%increase; green up pointing triangle are up 11% and 9%, respectively. The tariff increase took effect June 4. Trump also relied on Commerce Department findings from his first term in office when raising sector-based tariffs this year on aluminum, autos and auto parts. His directive raising aluminum tariffs to 50% from 25% took effect June 4, as well. While it is too soon to know whether the sectoral tariffs will draw serious court challenges, a look at the legal underpinnings shows potential soft spots. Trump in his June 3 proclamation said he exercised his authority under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to raise steel tariffs to 50% from 25%. In doing so, he cited the Commerce Department's 2018 investigative report that concluded the quantities of steel being imported into the U.S. threatened to harm national security. The trade statute says the president, within 90 days of such a report, shall determine whether he concurs with the findings and decide what action to take in response. After that, he has 15 days to implement the action. A 2021 ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said the deadlines aren't strict and some flexibility is allowed. In that case, Trump waited five months after his initial 2018 action to boost tariffs on imported Turkish steel to 50% from 25%. An importer, Transpacific Steel, sued, and the Court of International Trade ruled against the higher tariffs on Turkish imports, saying Trump had gone past the statutory time limit. (By then, Trump had already returned the tariff on Turkish steel to 25%.) The appellate court reversed that ruling in a 2-1 decision. That decision might have opened the door for Trump to rely on the same 2018 investigative report yet again—seven years later—for his latest tariff boost. However, the appeals court said its ruling applied 'in the circumstances presented here.' A decision could turn out differently in other circumstances, such as where the investigative findings are 'simply too stale to be a basis' for new presidential actions, the court said. Tim Meyer, an international-trade specialist and professor at Duke Law School, said the appeals court's ruling appears to leave room for a plaintiff to challenge the new steel tariffs. 'The tricky part is how to apply the standards the court identifies,' he said. 'For example, what does it mean for a report to be 'stale'? The court seems to suggest that the passage of time might be enough. But how much time is too much time?' Much has happened in the past seven years, including a pandemic. U.S. steel imports were 26.2 million metric tons in 2024, according to the Commerce Department, down 24% since 2017. That point alone could underscore the need for new investigative findings as a predicate for presidential action. Trump in his June 3 proclamation said he also considered 'current information newly provided' by the Commerce Department, but didn't say what it was. Investors will be watching to see if any well-heeled plaintiffs surface to contest the tariffs. Gordon Johnson, chief executive at GLJ Research, in a June 2 note to clients said he believed the surge in steel stocks was premature and that the new 50% tariffs 'could be overturned due to a lack of a new investigation.' He also noted that no one had sought an injunction yet to block them. That said, he wrote, 'we believe there are procedural problems that make these new tariffs vulnerable to a lawsuit.' Steelmaker shares could take a hit if a court invalidated the sectoral tariffs. U.S. automaker stocks, on the other hand, could rally. Of course, the Trump administration could simply initiate new Commerce Department investigations and reinstitute the tariffs later. The net result for investors and the economy ultimately might be just more prolonged uncertainty about Trump's favorite negotiating tool. Write to Jonathan Weil at
37 minutes ago
Could Musk-Trump feud stoke GOP divisions ahead of midterms? ANALYSIS
Even by the standards of President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk's relationship -- an unprecedented alliance punctuated by a meme-inspired reshaping of the government, numerous rocket launches, assassination attempts, a quarter-billion-dollar political gamble and electric car photo-ops -- it's been an unusual week. For months, Musk had been the closest of Trump's advisers -- even living at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and spending time with the president's family. More recently, Trump gave Musk a congratulatory Oval Office sendoff from his work leading cost-cutting efforts in his administration, giving him a golden key with a White House insignia. But the billionaire's muted criticisms of Trump's "big, beautiful bill" grew louder and more pointed, culminating in posts Thursday on his social media platform taking credit for Trump's November win and Republicans' takeover of the Senate. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," Musk posted. "Such ingratitude." Some lawmakers and Republicans worry Musk's apparent acrimonious departure from Trump's orbit could create new uncertainties for the party -- and stoke GOP divisions that would not serve Republicans well heading into a critical legislative stretch before the midterm elections. The back-and-forth attacks, which continued into the weekend and took a sharply personal turn, reverberated across a capital they have both reshaped. Trump on Friday told several reporters over the phone that he was not thinking about Musk and told ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl that Musk had "lost his mind." In the near term, Trump and the GOP are trying to muscle their signature tax and domestic policy megabill through the House and Senate, with the slimmest of margins and no shortage of disagreements. Any shift on the key issues could topple the high-wire act needed to please House and Senate Republicans. A nonstop torrent of criticism from Musk's social media megaphone could collapse negotiations, harden the position of the bill's critics and even undermine other pieces of Trump's first-term agenda. "You hate seeing division and chaos," Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who represents a swing district, told ABC News about the Trump-Musk fracas. "It's not helpful." Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, called Musk a "credible voice" on "debt and spending" issues. "It's never helpful when he says those things. He's a believable person and he has a broad reach, but I think he's frustrated and people understand the context," Arrington said, predicting that both men will eventually resolve their dispute. Republican operatives watching the spat unfold this week told ABC News it is too early to say how the feud between Trump and Musk could affect the next election. The billionaire spent more than anyone else on the last election, pouring $270 million into groups boosting Trump and other Republicans up and down the ballot, according to Federal Election Commission filings. He already suggested he would cut back on his political donations next cycle, more than a year out from the midterm elections. In the final stretch of the 2024 race, he relocated to Pennsylvania, hosting town halls and bankrolling his own get-out-the-vote effort in the critical swing state. Since his foray into Washington, Musk has become a deeply polarizing and unpopular figure, while the president's approval rating has ticked up in some recent surveys. Groups affiliated with Musk spent $20 million this spring on the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, only for the liberal candidate to win -- signaling to some Republicans the limits of Musk's political pull. While his support may be missed by Republicans next cycle, Trump has continued to raise millions of dollars to support his future political plans, a remarkable sum for a term-limited president that underscores his central role in the party and undisputed kingmaker status. Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., who is mulling a gubernatorial bid in 2026, downplayed the tensions or political implications, suggesting that reporters "spend way more time worrying about these things than most average people." "I'm sure they will make peace," Lawler told ABC News on Friday. There were some signs of a détente. While Musk continued to hurl insults at Trump ally and critic Steve Bannon, his social media activity appeared to cool off on Friday, and the billionaire said one supporter was "not wrong" for saying Trump and Musk are "much stronger together than apart." Through nearly a decade in politics and three campaigns for the White House, Trump has demonstrated a remarkable ability to move past disputes or disagreements with many intraparty rivals and onetime critics, including some who now serve in his Cabinet. Now, some Republicans left Washington this week asking themselves if Musk is willing to do the same.
