Trump vs Zelensky - Conflict at the white house

In partnership with

Morning friend, Happy Monday! ☕️ 

Hope you’re ready for the week.

Today we are talking conflict.

A model to manage it.

The SCARF model.

By David Rock.

To illustrate it practically (and for some entertainment), we’ll use the recent fireworks show in the White House: Trump vs Zelensky.

It ended up with Trump getting angry and Zelensky kicked out.

They didn’t even go for lunch…

So, how did this play out SCARF-wise?

Grab your coffee.

Let’s find out!

Find out why 1M+ professionals read Superhuman AI daily.

In 2 years you will be working for AI

Or an AI will be working for you

Here's how you can future-proof yourself:

1. Join the Superhuman AI newsletter – read by 1M+ people at top companies

2. Master AI tools, tutorials, and news in just 3 minutes a day

3. Become 10X more productive using AI

Join 1,000,000+ pros at companies like Google, Meta, and Amazon that are using AI to get ahead.

Sign up and start learning AI

What's SCARF Anyway?

David Rock’s SCARF Model describes five domains that move us between a threat or reward state. When we have team members that are in a threat state, this could impact theirs and the team’s performance.

As the manager, you need to unpack the root cause domain/s in order to move them back to a reward state.

The Trump-Zelensky Dance: SCARF in Action

DISCLAIMER: This is by no means an analysis of the politics, nor a commentary on the war. The idea is to find out how both parties ended up in a threat state that completely derailed the meeting.

1. Status: The need to feel important and significant

It’s Trump, so little surprise that Status was the biggest factor.

First, let’s look at what Zelensky did:

Trump is the US president.

He wants to be respected as such.

The meeting happened in the Oval Office.

So you’d expect some deference and respect from a visitor…

Attire: Zelensky arrives with no suit... This was not well received: “You’re all dressed up today”, Trump noted sarcastically.

Lack of Gratitude: Vice President Vance accused Zelensky of being ungrateful for American support. Trump's status as a benefactor was threatened.

Public Interruptions: Zelensky repeatedly interrupted Trump to argue that Russian President Putin couldn't be trusted. While a valid point, he was interrupting Trump in front of diplomats and international media.

Questioning the Deal-Maker: Trump likes to be known as the ultimate deal-maker. When Zelensky questioned the suggested diplomatic approach, he attacked Trump’s status as a skilled negotiator.

Trump also attacked Zelensky on multiple fronts:

Public Humiliation on an International Stage: Zelensky was openly berated in front of the cameras.

Relegated to Supplicant Rather Than Equal Leader: VP Vance: "Have you said 'thank you' even once during this meeting? No."

Explicit Status Diminishment: Trump: "You're not in a good position right now... You don't have the cards right now,"

In SCARF terms, such attacks on each other’s Status trigger immediate neurological threat responses that make productive conversation nearly impossible.

It’s no wonder the situation devolved so quickly.

Ok, Status was the main factor, really.

But let’s check the others.

2. Certainty: The need to know what to expect

Zelensky faced immense uncertainty when Trump implied that U.S. support could be withdrawn if Ukraine didn’t comply with his proposed ceasefire terms.

Zelensky's resistance to the ceasefire proposal (due to lack of security concerns) introduced unpredictability into Trump's plan to present himself as a peacemaker on the world stage.

With neither addressing the other's certainty needs, the conversation remained trapped in a haze of ambiguity.

3. Autonomy: The need to have control over events

Zelensky pushed back against Trump’s demands. He refused to play the "grateful aid recipient" role and give in.

Trump’s insistence on a ceasefire (despite the fact that Putin had violated previous agreements) threatened Ukraine’s/Zelensky’s sovereignty and decision-making power.

This autonomy imbalance created an unspoken tension throughout their interaction.

Did someone say cards?

4. Relatedness: The need for connection with others

Zelensky was left feeling isolated with Trump canceling their planned lunch and press conference.

Trump expected alignment and gratitude from Zelensky for U.S. military aid, which he felt he did not receive. Trump: "You're not acting at all thankful.”

Without establishing genuine connection, their conversation remained transactional rather than transformational.

5. Fairness: The need to be treated equally and justly

Zelensky felt it was unfair that Trump was pressuring him to accept a minerals deal that heavily favored U.S. interests while offering no security guarantees for Ukraine.

Trump: "We've given more than anybody". Trump likely felt it was unfair that Zelensky did not acknowledge the U.S.’s substantial support.

With both leaders feeling the scales were tilted against them, finding common ground became nearly impossible.

Learn AI in 5 minutes a day

What’s the secret to staying ahead of the curve in the world of AI? Information. Luckily, you can join 1,000,000+ early adopters reading The Rundown AI — the free newsletter that makes you smarter on AI with just a 5-minute read per day.

Sign up to start learning.

How SCARF Awareness Could Have Changed Everything

Imagine if Trump had publicly acknowledged Zelensky's wartime leadership courage (status) and Zelensky had recognized Trump's global influence (also status)?

Picture both leaders providing clearer views about what they could and couldn't commit to (certainty) and finding ways to ensure both had meaningful input into solutions (autonomy).

What if they'd had lunch before? If they had taken a moment to seek genuine connection beyond the conflict (relatedness).

What if they had openly addressed concerns about fair exchange of support among allies (fairness)?

The meeting would have unfolded in a reward rather than threat state.

Solutioning would’ve replaced hostility.

A more productive meeting.

The Takeaway for You - actively monitor SCARF domains.

Whether you're navigating office politics or family/friend disputes,

Ask yourself: Which SCARF domains are at play here?

Address them, and you'll de-escalate conflict.

That’s it for today - cheers till next Mon.

Have a great week ahead!

Vaugan

Send feedback!

We’d love to hear from you.

Your feedback helps us tweak and improve.

What we thought would happen: