Stanley Druckenmiller Used AI to Fire Back at Scott Bessent—Anthony Pompliano Says Clash Could Be a Masterful Game of 'Chess, Not Checkers'
Stanley Druckenmiller’s AI-assisted criticism of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s bond-buyback strategy has sparked a theory from Anthony Pompliano that the apparent feud could be a coordinated strategy.
Druckenmiller Criticizes Treasury Bond Buybacks
On Tuesday, Druckenmiller told Notus that he used artificial intelligence to help write the Wall Street Journal op-ed titled "Let the Bond Market Speak."
He said he was "not embarrassed by it" and stressed that the underlying ideas were his own. "I write everything using AI now for the same reason I use a calculator when I do math problems."
In another interview, Druckenmiller said he and colleagues at his family office regularly use major AI tools, including Anthropic’s Claude, OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini and Perplexity, for tasks such as writing. He compared the technology to using a speechwriter or calculator, according to the Wall Street Journal.
"I was a B student in English, but an A+ in economics," he stated, adding, "At 73, I’m kind of proud of using it."
Druckenmiller did not disclose which AI tool assisted with the Journal op-ed, which he wrote over the weekend while vacationing with his grandchildren.
WSJ Opinion Editor Paul Gigot defended Druckenmiller’s use of AI in writing Monday’s op-ed, calling AI "a fact of modern life" and saying there was no doubt the piece reflected Druckenmiller’s genuine views.
Druckenmiller criticized the Treasury’s decision to at least double liquidity-support buybacks of longer-dated Treasury securities in the piece.
He argued that artificially suppressing long-term yields could obscure the warning signals coming from the bond market and delay action on America’s fiscal problems.
"The market’s verdict was swift and correct: This wasn’t liquidity management, it was price management—and a mistake far larger than $4 billion suggests," he wrote.
What Chamath Palihapitiya Thinks of Druckenmiller’s AI Use
Entrepreneur and venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya also took to X to react to Druckenmiller’s use of AI.
"If Stan Druckenmiller isn’t embarrassed to be a meat proxy, you shouldn’t be either. It’s like after matches was invented, still celebrating the arduous time to rub two sticks together," he wrote.
Anthony Pompliano Floats Bessent-Druckenmiller Theory
Pompliano, founder and CEO of ProCap Financial, questioned why Druckenmiller would publicly challenge Bessent, whom he described as one of the world’s best macro traders.
"It has been well documented that he [Bessent] got an elite investing education while working under George Soros, but there is another investor who may be slightly more famous and widely recognized as the best Soros protege: Stanley Druckenmiller," he wrote on Substack.
Druckenmiller worked with Bessent at George Soros’ fund management firm in the 1990s, where Bessent was his protégé.
Pompliano suggested Druckenmiller’s use of AI could indicate the op-ed was produced quickly, raising the question of why he would swiftly publish a public rebuke of his friend and former colleague.
He then floated a theory that Bessent could privately share Druckenmiller’s concerns about government spending and debt while publicly pursuing the administration’s bond-buyback policy.
Under that scenario, Bessent announces plans to increase Treasury purchases while Druckenmiller publicly warns against market intervention — allowing the two to send different messages while pursuing the same broader goal.
‘The Bad Boys of Finance’ Playing Chess?
Pompliano ultimately described the possibility as "chess, not checkers," arguing that both investors have historically advocated greater fiscal discipline.
"The bad boys of finance just played their hand masterfully," Pompliano wrote. "And they did it together."
Benzinga could not independently verify Pompliano’s claim that Bessent instructed Druckenmiller to write the op-ed. Bessent and Druckenmiller did not immediately respond to Benzinga’s requests for comment.
The debate over AI-assisted journalism has intensified in recent months.
Earlier this month, UC Berkeley professor Zvezdelina Stankova faced criticism after using AI to edit a San Francisco Standard op-ed, though she said the piece reflected "intensive human work," according to the Guardian.
The publication said it understood the article contained the "original analysis" of Stankova and her colleagues.
In March, The New York Times cut ties with a freelance journalist after AI use in a book review resulted in plagiarism from a Guardian review. The Times added an editor’s note citing a violation of its standards.
Disclaimer: This content was partially produced with the help of AI tools and was reviewed and published by Benzinga editors.
Photo courtesy: Maxim Elramsisy / Shutterstock.com