Trump’s Team of Rivals: Why He Needs Musk’s Genius Despite Their Fallout

From left to right: Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Benjamin Netanyahu, Donald J. Trump, and Elon Musk.

In times of crisis, great leaders embrace adversaries whose brilliance and influence outweigh the comfort of loyal yes-men. President Donald Trump, facing economic uncertainty, technological competition, and political polarization, needs Elon Musk—a mercurial billionaire whose innovative genius and social media clout are unmatched, yet whose recent fallout with Trump echoes the tensions of historical "Teams of Rivals." Musk’s reported physical altercation with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and White House aide Sergio Gor’s role in derailing Musk’s NASA nominee highlight the risks of including such a volatile rival. Yet, like Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, and Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump requires Musk’s capability to navigate today’s challenges, even at the cost of personal friction. Why did these leaders empower foes over loyalists, and why does Trump need Musk despite their public feud? The answer lies in crisis leadership, where talent and diverse perspectives trump allegiance, ensuring robust governance over ego-driven sycophancy.

This "Team of Rivals" approach, as historian Doris Kearns Goodwin termed it, prioritizes expertise, public legitimacy, and national unity over personal loyalty. Lincoln’s cabinet of political opponents, Churchill’s wartime coalition, and Netanyahu’s unity governments show how adversaries strengthen governance by challenging assumptions and delivering results. Trump’s reliance on Musk mirrors these dynamics—Musk’s SpaceX and Tesla innovations, coupled with his X platform’s reach, offer Trump tools to reshape policy and public perception. However, the recent West Wing clashes and Musk’s public attacks on Trump’s policies test this alliance. By examining these historical and modern examples, we uncover why capability outweighs loyalty in crises and why Trump must harness Musk’s disruptive energy to succeed, even as their relationship frays.

Abraham Lincoln’s Cabinet: Unity Through Rivalry

In 1861, as the United States fractured into civil war, President Abraham Lincoln faced a nation on the brink of collapse. His response was to assemble a cabinet of political heavyweights, many of whom were his rivals for the 1860 Republican nomination. William Seward, Salmon Chase, and Edward Bates—each a formidable figure with presidential ambitions—joined Lincoln’s cabinet despite their initial disdain for the "prairie lawyer." Seward, a seasoned diplomat, became Secretary of State; Chase, a financial wizard, took the Treasury; and Bates, a respected jurist, served as Attorney General.

Lincoln’s choice was not born of weakness but of strategic necessity. The Civil War demanded the best minds, regardless of personal loyalty. Seward’s diplomatic finesse prevented foreign intervention, Chase’s innovative financing sustained the Union’s war effort, and Bates’ legal expertise grounded Lincoln’s policies. A cabinet of loyalists might have flattered Lincoln’s ego but lacked the depth to navigate a crisis of such magnitude. As Goodwin notes, Lincoln’s "political genius" lay in his ability to harness these rivals’ talents while managing their egos, turning adversaries like Seward into loyal allies while tolerating Chase’s persistent scheming.

The inclusion of rivals also unified the fractious Republican Party and signaled inclusivity to a divided North. By co-opting his opponents, Lincoln neutralized their ability to undermine him from the outside while leveraging their public stature. The result was a cabinet that, despite internal strife, produced robust debates and policies—like the Emancipation Proclamation—that shaped history. Loyalists, prone to groupthink, could not have matched this diversity of thought.

Winston Churchill’s War Cabinet: Coalition in Crisis

In May 1940, as Nazi Germany swept through Europe, Winston Churchill became Britain’s Prime Minister amid a national emergency. His response was to form a coalition war cabinet that bridged ideological divides, uniting Conservatives, Labour, and Liberals. Key figures included Clement Attlee, Labour’s leader and Churchill’s ideological opposite, Ernest Bevin, a trade unionist with no love for Tories, and Lord Halifax, a proponent of appeasement who clashed with Churchill’s belligerent stance.

Churchill’s decision to include adversaries was driven by the need for national unity and capability. Britain’s survival hinged on mobilizing every resource—industrial, military, and political. Attlee’s organizational prowess and Bevin’s influence over labor ensured workforce support for the war effort, while Halifax’s presence neutralized appeasement advocates within the Conservative Party. As historian Andrew Roberts observes, Churchill’s cabinet was a "marriage of necessity," binding disparate factions to face a common enemy.

The war cabinet’s diversity fostered rigorous debate, balancing Churchill’s bold impulses with Attlee’s pragmatism and Bevin’s focus on domestic stability. This dynamic produced resilient strategies, from the Battle of Britain to the Lend-Lease agreement with the United States. Loyalists, while easier to manage, might have reinforced Churchill’s occasional recklessness, risking strategic blunders. By embracing rivals, Churchill not only strengthened his government but also projected unity to a beleaguered nation, rallying public support.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s Unity Governments: Stability Amid Chaos

In modern Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu has twice formed unity governments with political adversaries to address existential crises. In 2020, after three inconclusive elections and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Netanyahu struck a deal with Benny Gantz, leader of the Blue and White party and a former military chief. In October 2023, following Hamas’ devastating attacks, Netanyahu again formed an emergency unity government, bringing Gantz and other opposition figures into a war cabinet to manage Israel’s response.

Netanyahu’s inclusion of Gantz was a calculated move. In 2020, the pandemic and political deadlock threatened Israel’s stability. Gantz’s centrist appeal and military credentials brought public trust and expertise to a government under fire for its COVID-19 response. The unity deal also delayed elections, buying Netanyahu time to consolidate power. In 2023, Gantz’s return to the war cabinet reassured Israelis skeptical of Netanyahu’s polarizing leadership, ensuring broader support for military operations.

Like Lincoln and Churchill, Netanyahu prioritized capability over loyalty. Gantz’s military experience and public legitimacy were critical in crises, whereas loyalists from Netanyahu’s Likud party might have lacked the stature or independence to inspire confidence. However, these arrangements were fragile—Gantz exited the 2020 government within a year and left the 2023 war cabinet in June 2024, citing disagreements over strategy. Despite these risks, Netanyahu’s unity governments stabilized Israel during turbulent times, demonstrating the value of adversaries in crisis governance.

Loyalty vs. Capability: The Core Tension

The choice between loyalty and capability is a perennial dilemma for leaders. Loyalists offer trust, alignment, and reduced internal conflict. A cabinet of yes-men ensures a leader’s decisions go unquestioned, minimizing leaks or public dissent. Yet, this comfort comes at a steep cost. Loyalists, eager to please, may prioritize the leader’s ego over national interest, leading to groupthink and poor decisions. In crises like the Civil War, World War II, or Israel’s wars, such weaknesses could spell disaster.

Adversaries, by contrast, bring expertise, credibility, and diverse perspectives. Lincoln needed Chase’s financial genius to fund the war; Churchill relied on Attlee’s coalition-building to unify Britain; Netanyahu used Gantz’s military stature to bolster his government’s legitimacy. These rivals challenged assumptions, fostering better decisions through debate. Their inclusion also co-opted opposition, neutralizing external threats and broadening public support.

However, empowering adversaries carries risks. Rivals may undermine the leader, pursue personal agendas, or destabilize the government. Chase plotted against Lincoln, Halifax clashed with Churchill, and Gantz’s exits weakened Netanyahu’s coalitions. Unity governments are often temporary, collapsing when crises wane or rivalries resurface. Yet, in existential moments, the benefits of capability outweigh these dangers, as demonstrated by Lincoln, Churchill, and Netanyahu.

Why Empower Adversaries? Strategic Imperatives

The decision to include adversaries reflects four strategic imperatives:

1.   Crisis Management: Existential threats demand the best talent. Lincoln’s war, Churchill’s blitz, and Netanyahu’s conflicts required expertise—military, financial, diplomatic—that loyalists often lacked. Adversaries delivered results where sycophants might have faltered.

2.   Political Stability: Unity governments neutralize opposition. Lincoln co-opted Republican rivals, Churchill bridged party divides, and Netanyahu delayed elections by partnering with Gantz. These moves consolidated power and projected strength.

3.   Public Legitimacy: Including adversaries signals inclusivity, boosting trust. Lincoln’s diverse cabinet unified the North, Churchill’s coalition rallied Britain, and Netanyahu’s unity governments reassured Israelis during times of crisis.

4.   Robust Decision-Making: Rivals challenge groupthink, refining policies. Lincoln’s debates with Seward shaped emancipation, Churchill’s war cabinet vetted military plans, and Gantz’s input ensured broader security perspectives.

The Perils of Loyalist Yes-Men

Loyalist-heavy cabinets, while tempting, weaken governance through ego-driven sycophancy. Yes-men reinforce biases, stifle innovation, and lack the public trust or expertise needed in crises. A loyalist-dominated cabinet might have botched Lincoln’s war strategy, undermined Churchill’s mobilization, or eroded Netanyahu’s credibility. Historical counterexamples underscore this danger: Richard Nixon’s insular circle, rife with loyalists, led to the Watergate scandal, illustrating the perils of groupthink.

Adversaries, while harder to manage, force leaders to confront hard truths. Their presence ensures policies are tested, not rubber-stamped. As Lincoln’s management of Chase, Churchill’s handling of Attlee, and Netanyahu’s uneasy alliance with Gantz show, capability-driven cabinets, though contentious, yield stronger outcomes.

Lessons for Modern Leadership: Why Trump Needs Elon Musk Amid Recent Fallout

President Donald Trump’s leadership, like that of Lincoln, Churchill, and Netanyahu, requires navigating crises—economic uncertainty, technological competition, and political polarization—where capability outweighs loyalty. Elon Musk, a former ally turned adversary after a public falling-out in June 2025, exemplifies this dynamic. Recent tensions, fueled by a reported physical altercation with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and White House aide Sergio Gor’s role in withdrawing Musk’s NASA nominee, Jared Isaacman, highlight the risks of including a rival like Musk. Bessent allegedly confronted Musk over unfulfilled promises of $1 trillion in DOGE budget cuts, leading to Musk shoving him in the West Wing, a clash confirmed by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. Gor, harboring resentment since Musk criticized his personnel decisions in a March 2025 cabinet meeting, reportedly pushed Trump to drop Isaacman’s nomination as a “final shot” at Musk, escalating the feud. These events, culminating in Musk’s public attacks on Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” as a “pork-filled abomination,” mirror the friction Lincoln faced with Chase or Churchill with Halifax.

Yet, Trump needs Musk precisely because he is not a yes-man. Musk’s expertise in innovation—evident in Tesla’s electric vehicle dominance and SpaceX’s NASA contracts—offers solutions for economic revitalization and technological leadership, critical in countering China’s advances. His ownership of X amplifies Trump’s messaging, bypassing hostile media and rallying a loyal base, much as Attlee’s Labour ties unified Britain for Churchill. Musk’s contrarian perspective, though disruptive, forces rigorous policy debate, preventing groupthink among loyalists who might prioritize Trump’s ego over national interest. Despite the fallout, Musk’s influence remains vital—his absence risks alienating tech-savvy voters and weakening Trump’s agenda. Like Lincoln managing Seward’s ambitions, Trump must harness Musk’s capabilities, navigating personal clashes and Gor’s vendettas, to leverage his unrivaled expertise and public reach for America’s benefit in a turbulent era.

Conclusion

Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, and Benjamin Netanyahu faced crises that tested their leadership. By choosing adversaries over loyalists, they prioritized capability, unity, and robust decision-making over personal comfort. Their Team of Rivals cabinets—though fraught with conflict—delivered results that loyalist yes-men could not. The lesson is clear: in times of existential peril, great leaders embrace the challenge of managing rivals, recognizing that the pursuit of excellence, not allegiance, ensures a nation’s survival. As we navigate today’s turbulent world, their example—echoed in Trump’s complex relationship with Musk—reminds us that governance is not about ego but about harnessing the best minds, even those who dare to disagree.

Citations:

1. Goodwin, Doris Kearns. *Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln*. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2005.

2. Roberts, Andrew. *Churchill: Walking with Destiny*. New York: Viking, 2018.

3. Pfeffer, Anshel. *Bibi: The Turbulent Life and Times of Benjamin Netanyahu*. New York: Basic Books, 2018.

4. “Netanyahu and Gantz Agree to Form Unity Government,” *Haaretz*, April 20, 2020, https://www.haaretz.com.

5. “Gantz Joins Netanyahu in Emergency War Cabinet,” *Jerusalem Post*, October 11, 2023, https://www.jpost.com.

6. “Gantz Quits Israel’s War Cabinet, Citing Lack of Strategy,” *BBC News*, June 9, 2024, https://www.bbc.com.

7. Seward, William H. *The Diary of William H. Seward*. Edited by Frederick W. Seward. New York: Random House, 1891.

8. Churchill, Winston S. *The Second World War, Volume II: Their Finest Hour*. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1949.

9. “Israel’s Unity Government: A Fragile Alliance,” *Foreign Affairs*, November 2023, https://www.foreignaffairs.com.

10. “The White House Adviser Who Fueled the Trump-Musk NASA Feud,” *Axios*, June 6, 2025, https://www.axios.com.

11. “Insane Moment Elon Musk ‘SHOVED’ Trump’s Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent During Screaming Match,” *Daily Mail Online*, May 31, 2025, https://www.dailymail.co.uk.

12. “Elon ‘Shoved’ 62-Year-Old Scott Bessent and Trump Did Not Side with Musk,” *Times of India*, May 31, 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com.

13. “The Influential Trump Advisor Who Triggered the President’s Spectacular Split with Elon Musk,” *Daily Mail Online*, June 6, 2025, https://www.dailymail.co.uk.

14. “Musk Shoved Scott Bessent in Angry Fight, White House Confirms,” *Boing Boing*, May 30, 2025, https://boingboing.net.

15. “Trump to Withdraw Musk’s Ally as Nominee for Top NASA Job,” *The New York Times*, May 31, 2025, https://www.nytimes.com.

16. “Sergio Gor Donald Trump Staffer Behind Fallout With Elon Musk Sources Report,” *Times Now*, June 7, 2025, https://www.timesnownews.com.

17. “A White House Staffer May Have Triggered the Trump-Musk Feud,” *Hindustan Times*, June 7, 2025, https://www.hindustantimes.com.

18. “’Sore Subject’: White House Confirms Physical Brawl Between Key Trump Allies,” *Raw Story*, May 30, 2025, https://www.rawstory.com.

19. “Musk Goes Scorched Earth and Says He Is the Reason Why Trump Won in 2024,” *The Independent*, June 6, 2025, https://www.independent.co.uk.

20. “Four Key Reasons for the Downfall of Trump and Musk’s Presidential Bromance,” *The Independent*, June 5, 2025, https://www.independent.co.uk.

21. “Elon Musk Allegedly ‘Got Physical’ with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent,” *The Daily Beast*, May 30, 2025, https://www.thedailybeast.com.

22. “BREAKING: Elon Musk Allegedly Got Physical with U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent,” *Patrick Webb*, May 30, 2025, https://t.co/qKUTiDHVAN.

23. “BREAKING: Bombshell Reporting Reveals That MAGA Billionaire Elon Musk’s Departure,” *Occupy Democrats*, May 30, 2025, https://t.co/2erdtfGvfO.