The team of the American President Donald Trump has recently witnessed a series of internal disputes and tensions that have raised questions about the cohesion of his administration and its ability to reconcile differing views and opinions. The New York Times reported that disagreements emerged during a cabinet meeting, where a heated argument erupted between Elon Musk, who was appointed as head of the Government Efficiency Office, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio over budget cuts. Additionally, voices have been raised regarding other clashes between Musk and other cabinet members, reflecting the escalation of tensions within the presidential team. Furthermore, Trump’s recent nominations have sparked widespread controversy due to Musk’s increasing influence, leading to clear divisions.
Increasing Indicators
Despite the lack of widespread attention on the potential disputes within President Trump’s inner circle, the most significant of these disputes can be observed as follows:
1- The disagreement between Rubio and Musk over austerity policies: The White House witnessed increasing tension between Elon Musk, responsible for the Government Efficiency Office, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The disagreement began during a cabinet meeting when Musk criticized Rubio for not implementing widespread cuts in the number of State Department employees, accusing him of procrastinating in reducing the size of the bureaucratic apparatus. Media sources indicate that Rubio’s response was swift, pointing out that 1,500 employees had accepted early retirement offers, emphasizing that the process of reducing the workforce should be done cautiously without harming the work of the department. This public exchange revealed fundamental differences among Trump’s team members regarding how to manage the government and reduce its expenses. In the same context, this was not the first disagreement between the two men; it is said that they clashed previously over other issues related to government reforms. Despite Trump’s attempts to downplay the importance of these tensions, they reflect the presence of clear divisions within his administration, divisions that may affect the effective implementation of his policies, especially with the ongoing controversy surrounding the extent of Musk’s involvement in shaping government policies.
2- Musk’s disagreements with the Secretary of Transportation: In addition to the previously mentioned prominent case, President Donald Trump’s administration witnessed a noticeable escalation of tensions between Elon Musk and Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy, in one of the most public confrontations within the White House. The disagreement began during a cabinet meeting when Duffy criticized Musk’s repeated attempts to restructure federal agencies, pointing out that Musk had exceeded his advisory role by trying to impose unstudied austerity policies, especially regarding air traffic controllers. Duffy accused Musk of seeking to lay off a large number of employees in the aviation sector, which could lead to problems in managing American airspace and flight delays. This angered pilots’ unions and air traffic controllers, who expressed concern about the impact of these policies on public safety.
On his part, Musk strongly denied these allegations, considering what he was doing as merely “proposals to reduce bureaucracy,” not executive decisions, emphasizing that he did not have the authority to take such actions, but he believed that the current system suffered from administrative laxity that led to significant financial waste. This disagreement prompted President Trump to intervene to calm the atmosphere, stating in a subsequent statement that Musk’s authority was limited to providing advice on government work efficiency, and that final decisions regarding hiring and budget cuts fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the cabinet members and heads of federal agencies.
3- Possibility of disputes between “Masoud Pauls” and “Steve Witkov”: It is rumored that President Donald Trump’s administration has witnessed unannounced tensions between Masoud Pauls, the President’s Senior Advisor for Arab and Middle Eastern Affairs, and Steve Witkov, the Special Envoy to the Middle East. These tensions are partially attributed to Israeli reservations about dealing with Pauls due to his Lebanese origins and close relationships with Arab and Muslim communities. Therefore, it is also rumored that in response to these reservations, Witkov appointed Morgan Ortagus as his deputy to handle the files of Lebanon and Syria, allowing him to focus on files related to Israel.
Ortagus, the former spokesperson for the State Department, is known for her ideological positions supporting Israel, making her a preferred choice for Tel Aviv. It is worth noting the noticeable decline in Pauls’ media presence, especially after his public statements about his successes in bringing Lebanese factions closer together, which may not have been welcomed by President Trump, who prefers to attribute all successes to himself in public.
3- Diverging views on tariff increase decisions: President Donald Trump’s team experienced sharp divisions over the tariff policy. While some senior officials supported these tariffs to protect domestic industries, others expressed concerns about their negative impact on the American economy and its trade relations. For example, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick supported the tariffs, considering them a means to combat drug smuggling and protect national security. On the other hand, the White House Economic Advisor Kevin Hassett warned that these tariffs could lead to higher prices for imported manufactured goods for American consumers. Economic experts also pointed out that these policies could increase the risks of an economic recession, reflecting the significant divergence of views within the Trump administration on how to address major economic issues.
4- Allegations against Musk for defending the interests of large corporations: Before Trump assumed power, the signs of these disagreements had already begun to emerge. A heated disagreement erupted between Elon Musk and his business partner Vivek Ramaswamy in the Government Efficiency Office DOGE over the H-1B visa policy. Musk supported expanding the issuance of visas to attract global engineers and scientists, considering it necessary to maintain American leadership in technology and artificial intelligence. On the other hand, Ramaswamy strongly opposed this, warning that expanding the program would reduce job opportunities for Americans and lower wages in the technology sector, accusing Musk of defending the interests of large corporations at the expense of local workers. Musk responded by stating that restricting visas would lead to the migration of innovative minds to more open countries, which could harm the American economy in the long run. This disagreement reflects the presence of divisions at a very early stage within the Trump administration, and its impact continued and worsened in the first two months of the administration’s tenure.
Contributing Factors
These disputes do not necessarily mean that a definite rift will strike the ranks of Trump’s inner team, but the presence of certain contributing factors will determine the fate of these disputes and whether they will be overcome or inevitably collide with the option of exclusion and change. This can be measured based on some practical cases during his first administration:
1- The limits of the impact of Trump’s loyalty-based management style: Personal loyalty to President Donald Trump is considered an essential factor in determining the fate of his team members. The personal relationship with him played a crucial role in turning internal disagreements into actual changes in positions during his first administration. Trump is known for his loyalty-based management style, where he dismissed or fired many officials due to the decline in their personal relationship with him, regardless of their professional performance. For example, this happened with Attorney General Jeff Sessions and National Security Advisor John Bolton during his previous administration due to sharp personal disagreements over national security policies. These examples confirm that the personal relationship with Trump is not just a preference, but a fundamental factor in the retention or departure of officials from his administration, contributing to turning divergences into actual divisions and frequent changes within his team.
2- The role of Congress in highlighting disputes within the Trump administration: Congress, with its Republican and Democratic wings, previously played a pivotal role in determining the fate of disputes within the Trump administration. It used its oversight and legislative powers to influence internal conflicts among White House officials. In some cases, Congress contributed to escalating these disputes and turning them into public divisions, as happened during the first impeachment proceedings when former Trump administration officials, such as former National Security Advisor John Bolton, testified against the President or publicly spoke about their disagreements with him. Similarly, the opposition of some prominent Republicans to Trump’s decisions, such as Senator Mitt Romney’s opposition to attempts to interfere in the Department of Justice or foreign policy, led to increased pressure on the White House.
In the context of the current administration, Republican Senator Rick Scott commented on the ongoing controversy, pointing out that there is widespread misunderstanding about the nature of the role played by Musk within the administration. Scott clarified that any decisions related to reducing the federal workforce must go through official channels, emphasizing that Congress has an oversight role over any major changes in the administrative structure. He also emphasized that the authority to lay off employees or restructure agencies does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Government Efficiency Office but is subject to the authority of the President and his cabinet members only.
3- The leakage of disputes to the American media: Media leaks played a crucial role in fueling disputes within the Trump administration, as internal conflicts turned into public battles due to the publication of sensitive information in the press. The Trump administration was known to be one of the most leak-prone administrations, as some officials used this means to undermine their opponents within the White House or influence public opinion. For example, during Trump’s first administration, the media revealed sharp disagreements between White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and the President’s son-in-law Jared Kushner regarding influence within the administration, which led to the deterioration of the relationship between Kelly and Trump and his subsequent dismissal.
Similarly, leaks regarding the President’s handling of the COVID-19 crisis sparked widespread controversy, especially when it was revealed that some of his advisors were publicly opposing his decisions, but he ignored their advice. These previous examples show the role that the media can play in excluding or retaining a Trump administration official according to the course of events between them and their opponents.
4- The role of pressure groups in conflicts within the administration: Pressure groups (lobbies) played a primary role in fueling or calming disputes within Trump’s first administration. They exerted strong influence on decision-makers within the White House, leading some officials to align with agendas that conflicted with their colleagues’ orientations. For example, pro-Israel lobbies, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), played a role in enhancing the influence of advisors like Jared Kushner at the expense of other officials who had a more balanced view of Middle East foreign policy. These pressures were not limited to shaping political decisions but also contributed to fueling divisions within the administration. Some officials found themselves under intense pressure from conflicting lobbies, leading to the withdrawal or dismissal of some due to the escalation of dispute intensity within the White House.
Conclusion: Donald Trump’s administration has always been a field for deep disputes and internal divisions, as conflicts among officials escalated due to competition for influence, the absence of a unified vision, and the dominance of personal loyalty over decision-making criteria. This dynamic reappears in the current political scene with what is rumored about the disagreement between Elon Musk and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a tension that reflects how economic and political influence can intertwine to reshape alliances and divisions within right-wing circles. Although these disputes have surfaced after less than two months of the administration’s tenure, they may push Trump towards a more stringent approach to rid his administration of any disputes he sees as a hindrance to his political project domestically and internationally, and thus a larger segment of personalities may be affected compared to the personalities involved in the controversy.
