In the often-turbulent world of U.S. presidential transitions, the recent collaboration between outgoing President Joe Biden’s and incoming President-elect Donald Trump’s Middle East teams stands out as a rare moment of cooperative diplomacy. As America navigated the final months of Biden’s presidency, an urgent and high-stakes negotiation unfolded in the Middle East, with the potential to save lives and quell a devastating conflict. At the heart of the effort were two men representing opposite ends of America’s fiery political divide: Brett H. McGurk, Biden’s veteran Middle East negotiator, and Steve Witkoff, a real estate investor-turned-Trump envoy.
### A Unifying Mission Amid Political Rivalry
The setting was anything but ordinary: McGurk was stationed in Qatar, the central hub for brokering a cease-fire deal in the ongoing Gaza conflict, while Witkoff, Trump’s pick, had flown between Doha and Israel in a flurry of diplomatic activity. Despite the acrimonious relationship between their principals, the two negotiators found themselves working together to secure not only the release of 33 hostages held by Hamas but also an agreement to temporarily cease fighting.
This moment demonstrated an unprecedented, if uneasy, collaboration between a current and incoming administration from rival parties during a time of crisis. Both sides understood the stakes. For Biden, it was about finishing what his administration had painstakingly built over months of negotiations. For Trump, it was an opportunity to make a bold entrance onto the global stage even before his second term began. And for the American hostages and victims of the conflict, every moment of delay had life-or-death consequences.
### The Complex Dance of Credit and Cooperation
As the cease-fire deal came together, so did the competition for credit. Trump quickly took to social media to hail the agreement as the result of his “historic victory” in being reelected, describing it as an “EPIC ceasefire” achieved under his influence. Meanwhile, Biden struck a more measured tone, crediting his administration’s tireless efforts over many months to bring the two sides to the table, even calling it one of the toughest negotiations of his presidency. When a reporter brazenly asked Biden whether Trump deserved credit for the deal, his tart response—“Is that a joke?”—spoke volumes about the underlying tension.
Despite the political posturing, representatives on the ground from both camps emphasized their pragmatic working relationship. Witkoff, self-described as a “blunt” negotiator, acknowledged McGurk’s leadership in crafting the agreement, while making it clear that Trump’s determination to seal a deal before his inauguration added critical momentum. According to sources, Trump’s threats of escalating consequences if there was no agreement likely spurred Hamas’s leadership to make difficult decisions. Nevertheless, the months of groundwork laid by McGurk and his team were central to hammering out the deal’s framework and specifics.
### The Central Players: McGurk and Witkoff
McGurk’s role was clear: as Biden’s seasoned Middle East troubleshooter, he was deeply immersed in the nuts and bolts of the deal, negotiating specifics like timelines and terms. On the other side, Witkoff’s mandate revolved around signaling Trump’s determination to see results quickly. Witkoff’s blunt, high-pressure tactics, including an unusual Saturday trip to Israel during the Jewish Sabbath, showed the urgency and seriousness of Trump’s demands. His meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decisively conveyed that Netanyahu’s perceived delays in the process needed to end, allowing McGurk to apply pressure on Hamas from the other side.
Trump’s incoming administration had a strategic incentive to boast its influence in bringing the agreement over the finish line. Netanyahu’s public remarks reflected this political calculus: he lavishly praised Trump for his involvement and credited him with helping advance the deal, but only briefly noted Biden in the final lines of his statement. Whether intentional or not, this recognition played into Trump’s narrative of having achieved “so much without even being in the White House.”
### The Roots of the Deal and Overlap in Strategy
Behind the jockeying for credit lies undeniable evidence of depth and complexity in the cooperative process. Biden officials believe the groundwork for the deal began earlier in his administration during separate negotiations to end clashes between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The success of those talks weakened Hamas’s position and isolated the group, making them more willing to consider a cease-fire in Gaza. This was the strategic benefit that McGurk carried into negotiations, taking advantage of the leverage his team had cultivated over time.
Once Trump’s envoy, Witkoff, joined the effort following Trump’s election victory in November, the two camps worked in tandem to bring the deal to fruition. McGurk would continually update Witkoff on negotiations and invited him to Doha for the final rounds, fostering an unusual yet effective back-and-forth between their teams. This collaboration was cited as evidence of what could happen when partisan politics are momentarily set aside for a higher purpose.
By design, the cease-fire agreement aimed to send a unified message to both Hamas and Israel: the fighting must stop, and the hostages must be released. This unity of purpose was a deliberate attempt to rise above domestic political divisions, at least for the duration of the talks.
### The Uneasy Transition of Power
However, this spirit of cooperation did not extend fully to the overall transition of power between Biden and Trump. The run-up to Trump’s return to the White House was marked by deep distrust and, at times, obstruction. Trump’s team sought to “clean out” the White House career staff, while Biden’s administration appeared to issue last-minute orders that boxed in the incoming administration, creating heightened tension between the two camps.
Still, on the matter of the cease-fire, Biden acknowledged that the execution of the deal would largely fall to Trump’s incoming administration. Speaking to reporters, Biden expressed reluctant respect for the joint efforts, saying, “In these past few days, we’ve been speaking as one team.” But this goodwill was not reciprocated publicly by Trump, who made no mention of the outgoing administration’s role, instead choosing to champion his own team’s successes.
### A Glimpse of What’s Possible
The partnership between McGurk and Witkoff offers a rare window into what can be achieved when political animosity yields to pragmatic diplomacy. Their ability to align their efforts, even while representing leaders with drastically different viewpoints, highlighted the potential for bipartisan cooperation in global crises. However, as evidenced by the leaders’ divergent public narratives and limited acknowledgment of each other’s contributions, this spirit was far from universal.
Ultimately, the cease-fire agreement represents a milestone not only for American diplomacy in the Middle East but also for what it reveals about the delicate dance of power during a presidential transition. While the broader backdrop of partisan division remains firmly in place, moments like these suggest that, sometimes, the most pressing challenges demand us to rise above politics—even if only temporarily.
