Available reporting shows that after a severe mid‑2025 rupture over Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill,” Trump and Musk ultimately moved back toward cooperation rather than remaining long‑term adversaries.

• In June–July 2025, Musk broke dramatically with Trump over the “Big, Beautiful Bill,” denouncing it as “insane” deficit spending, threatening primary challenges and creating a new “America Party” in explicit rebuke to Trump and the GOP. Trump in turn called Musk “off the rails” and a “train wreck,” and threatened to cut subsidies or even look at deporting him, with coverage characterizing the split as a spectacular falling‑out. (livemint.com) This period clearly looked like a real rupture.
• However, the America Party effort quickly stalled; by late July reporting noted Musk hadn’t filed FEC paperwork or fielded candidates, and by August 20 he was already “giving up” on actually starting the party and instead considering support for VP JD Vance in 2028—signaling retreat from a sustained, organized challenge to Trumpism rather than a permanent realignment against it. (en.wikipedia.org)
• On September 21, 2025, Trump and Musk publicly met, shook hands and chatted at a large memorial for Charlie Kirk in Arizona. The Guardian and other outlets framed this as raising the prospect of reconciliation, and noted that Musk himself posted a friendly image of the two together captioned “For Charlie,” while the White House account amplified the encounter. (theguardian.com) The Wikipedia entry on the Trump–Musk feud summarizes the second phase of their conflict (June 28–September 21, 2025) as ending with a “Reunited” status, reflecting that the feud, as such, was considered over. (en.wikipedia.org)
• By late 2025, Musk was again doing business with the administration—e.g., a GSA agreement with his xAI for federal AI adoption—indicating a pragmatic working relationship despite unresolved policy differences over the bill. (en.wikipedia.org)

Taken together, the sequence is: intense but time‑bounded feud, an attempted but quickly deflated third‑party break, then an early‑fall public rapprochement and resumed cooperation. That matches Chamath’s directional claim that their conflict would be temporary and that they would ultimately find common ground rather than experience a lasting rupture, even though the path there involved a much deeper and more chaotic break than his framing implied. Hence the prediction is best scored as right in outcome, albeit messier and more contingent than suggested in the podcast.