-(4)-1731951738-q80.webp){kind=small}
President Donald Trump asserted on Friday that Israel would transfer control of Gaza to the United States, further expanding on his controversial proposal for an American takeover of the war-torn region.
His plan, which suggests the permanent relocation of Palestinians, represents a dramatic shift in longstanding U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.
Speaking to reporters, Trump stated, “Gaza will be given to us by Israel,” adding that his proposal to assume responsibility for the territory had been “very well received.”
He insisted that his administration would not support a temporary displacement of Palestinians, saying, “We don’t want to see everybody move out and then move back in 10 years.”
Despite Trump’s confidence, his proposal has received a mixed response, with regional Arab leaders and even some members of his own Republican Party showing hesitation.
Critics argue that the logistics of a U.S. takeover remain unclear, and Trump's assertion that Gaza should be “cleaned out” has sparked further controversy. However, he has yet to provide details on how such a plan would be implemented.
Trump intensified his push for the relocation of Palestinians from Gaza just days after shocking the international community by announcing his support for resettling displaced Palestinians into Egypt and Jordan.
His remarks, made during a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, immediately drew strong opposition from both countries, which rejected the notion of accepting large numbers of Palestinian refugees.
Despite this pushback, Trump doubled down on his proposal, claiming that his plan “would lead to great stability in the area” and could be achieved with “very little money.” However, he has not outlined any specific measures for how the plan would work or how it would be funded.
The idea of U.S. control over Gaza has also raised significant legal and military concerns. The proposal has led to questions about whether such a move would require deploying American troops to enforce control and whether forcing the resettlement of Palestinians would violate international law.
Trump’s statement that Israel would “turn over Gaza to the U.S. at the conclusion of fighting” has fueled speculation over the long-term implications of American involvement in the region.
The Israeli military has been engaged in a prolonged 16-month war against Hamas, with a fragile ceasefire agreement recently taking effect. Trump’s remarks have injected further uncertainty into an already volatile situation, prompting concerns among diplomatic and military analysts.
Some officials within Trump’s own administration have attempted to downplay the president’s comments, likely to mitigate potential backlash.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt sought to clarify Trump’s stance on Wednesday, insisting that he had not committed to deploying U.S. military forces into Gaza. This came after Trump himself suggested that “we will do what is necessary” when asked about potential American intervention.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed this sentiment, stating on Wednesday that the U.S. government is “a very long way” from any direct involvement in the Gaza Strip. However, concerns remain over whether Trump’s rhetoric signals a shift toward increased American intervention in the region.
Trump’s statements have put his administration in a difficult position, as they attempt to navigate a foreign policy landscape already fraught with tension. The U.S. has long maintained a complex relationship with Israel and Arab nations, balancing diplomatic efforts with military strategy.
Trump’s call for a U.S.-led restructuring of Gaza could complicate these relationships, especially given the immediate resistance from key regional players.
The legal implications of a U.S. takeover of Gaza are also under scrutiny. Forcing an entire population to relocate would likely be considered a violation of international law, and any attempt to establish U.S. control over the territory would require extensive justification under both domestic and international legal frameworks.
Human rights organizations have already expressed alarm over the proposal, warning of the potential humanitarian crisis that could arise from mass displacement.
Beyond the legal and military ramifications, Trump’s proposal has sparked debate in Washington over whether the U.S. should become directly involved in governing foreign territories.
Some lawmakers have expressed concern that assuming control over Gaza would create a long-term commitment that could entangle the U.S. in a prolonged and costly foreign occupation.
Others argue that Trump’s suggestion is an attempt to reshape the U.S.’s role in the Middle East, aligning more closely with Israeli interests while sidelining Palestinian sovereignty.
As Trump continues to defend his position, it remains unclear whether his administration will take concrete steps toward implementing his vision for Gaza. The strong opposition from Arab nations and legal concerns surrounding forced relocation present significant obstacles.
Meanwhile, members of his own administration appear to be trying to manage the fallout from his remarks, distancing themselves from any immediate action.
For now, Trump’s proposal has added another layer of complexity to an already volatile geopolitical situation. Whether it remains rhetorical or evolves into a tangible policy initiative will depend on how both domestic and international stakeholders respond in the coming months.
