Vance stepped in to defend Musk. On October 22, following assertions by Secretary of State Rubio and Defense Secretary Hegseth that the U.S. government had not ordered a reduction in Starlink’s speed for Ukraine, Vice President Vance issued a statement. Vance stated that Elon Musk runs a private company and, quite reasonably, would not wish to become entangled in a conflict between two state actors without clear guidance from the U.S. government on what actions he should take.
I do not believe this matter is fundamentally about Elon Musk. At its core, it reflects the direction of U.S. policy toward Ukraine and Russia. Clearly, Vance’s remarks were intended to shield Musk. The central point is this: the issue of speed throttling cannot be pinned solely on Musk. Rubio and Hegseth appear to be attempting to shift responsibility onto Musk, distancing the government from accountability. Vance, however, argued that the U.S. government should have provided clear directives to businesses, rather than evading its own responsibilities.
Underlying this dynamic, Rubio and Vance each have their own strategic calculations. For Rubio and Hegseth—leaders of key executive departments—the priority appears to be minimizing fallout and containing the situation. From a perception standpoint, slowing down Starlink could be interpreted as weakness toward Russia and betrayal of allies. As top officials in the administration, if this incident escalates, both may face scrutiny from Congress.
After all, Congress has already appropriated funds for Ukraine, which constitute committed aid. Now, if the delivery of that aid is being compromised in execution, questions arise about transparency and intent. Should the executive branch have acted unilaterally, lawmakers aligned with the Ukraine assistance agenda would seize on the opportunity to demand accountability through hearings. This kind of political exposure is something both Rubio and Hegseth wish to avoid. If misconduct or overreach is proven, their political futures could be at risk. Moreover, personal tensions exist between Rubio and Musk: during Musk’s tenure leading the Department of Government Efficiency, he pushed aggressively for federal workforce reductions, openly criticizing Rubio in cabinet meetings—an incident that created friction between them.
Vance, by contrast, belongs to the MAGA faction within the Republican Party, while Rubio represents the establishment wing. Both hold significant influence and are vying for dominance within the party. Vance’s intervention on Musk’s behalf likely stems not only from personal rapport but also from recognition of Musk’s substantial media reach and access to technology sector resources. Strategically, Vance may see value in cultivating such alliances for future political positioning.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1879763702656011/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.