Follow us on social

Trump shocks supporters with US 'own' and 'rebuild' Gaza plan

Trump shocks supporters with US 'own' and 'rebuild' Gaza plan

Upwards of 2 million Palestinians would be removed, while the president didn't rule out US boots on the ground

Analysis | Middle East

From his days as a scrappy 2016 candidate in the wake of the 9/11 "forever wars" Trump has been pretty adamant that the United States should not be in the business of "nation building" or putting our men and women in uniform in harm's way to solve other countries' problems. Until now, it seems.

In remarks that sent shock waves across the American political spectrum, left and right, Trump said he wants the U.S. to empty the Gaza strip of its nearly two million inhabitants, and develop it like a property owner. In fact he said he wanted the U.S. to "own it" and did not rule out sending our troops to get the job done. Here's the video.

"The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip and we will do a job with it too," he said, with a smiling Benjamin Netanyahu next to him.

"We'll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site, level the site and get rid of the destroyed buildings, level it out. Create an economic development that will supply unlimited numbers of jobs and housing for the people of the area. Do a real job, do something different."

He claimed that leaders all over the Middle East think it's a great idea and that it won't be a rebuilt place for "a specific group of people" but for people "all over the Middle East."

Trump won in 2016 and in part in 2024 because he railed against the status quo military adventuring of the past 25 years and especially nation building. His efforts to withdraw from the Afghanistan War were born out of a conviction that the 20 years spent there trying to remake the society while fighting the Taliban was a sheer waste of American blood and treasure. The contradiction was not lost on shocked observers on Tuesday night.

Rep. Warren Davidson, (R-Ohio), a supporter of Trump, just offered one question: "America First?"

In comments on X early Wednesday morning, Senator Rand Paul made it clear this was not. "The pursuit for peace should be that of the Israelis and the Palestinians. I thought we voted for America First. We have no business contemplating yet another occupation to doom our treasure and spill our soldiers blood," he wrote.

"I’d like to ask Trump how this magical, unicorn Gaza vision jives with his 'we need to get out of the Middle East' messaging,“ blasted Daniel DePetris of Defense Priorities.

"President Trump has long prioritized lowering the U.S. military footprint in the Middle East and encouraging peace deals. This is the opposite of that,” charged Adam Weinstein, Middle East fellow at the Quincy Institute, also a veteran of the Afghanistan War.

“The president’s proposal of occupying Gaza hits the trifecta of bad ideas," he added. "It’s simultaneously illegal, unethical, and terrible for U.S. interests. Whether said in earnest or as some perverse form of leverage, it’s already damaging and should be reversed.”

Trump's Democratic critics came out reliably swinging. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.): "He’s totally lost it. A U.S. invasion of Gaza would lead to the slaughter of thousands of U.S. troops and decades of war in the Middle East."

But as reports started rolling it was clear that Republicans were baffled by the turn of events, too. It takes a lot, as they say, to show Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) a war he doesn't want (your sons and daughters) to fight. "I think that would be an interesting proposal," he said carefully. "We’ll see what our Arab friends say about that. I think most South Carolinians would not be excited about sending Americans to take over Gaza."

“I think that might be problematic. But I’ll keep an open mind,” he added. “That would be a tough place to be stationed as an American, would be Gaza."

Trump's other supporters tip-toed a bit but their confusion was palpable.

Sen. Josh Hawley, (R-MO) "I don’t know that I think it’s the best use of United States resources to spend a bunch of money in Gaza. I think maybe I prefer that to be spent in the United States first, but let’s see what happens.”

For the record, Sen. Jon Fetterman, (D-Penn), big Israel supporter throughout the conflict, doesn't think it would be a bad idea to throw American soldiers into a Middle East furnace.

“I don’t know what the role [of U.S. forces] is, but they’re obviously a part of it, and I fully support,” he declared.

Remember that when you have to wave a bunch of 21-year-olds off to provide security in the Gaza "security vacuum." Remember how certain politicians said it would never happen again, under their watch.

For his part, Trump says, "everybody I've spoken to loves the idea of the United States owning that piece of land, developing and creating thousands of jobs with something that will be magnificent in a really magnificent area that nobody would know." This is his version of "government in a box" and "being greeted with flowers and candy," and even "cake walk." Let's hope he — we — don't have to learn, again, how this ends.

This story has been updated.


Top photo credit: US President Donald J. Trump speaks during a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC, USA, 04 February 2025. (Reuters)
Analysis | Middle East
iraqi protests iran israel
Top photo credit: Iraqi Shi'ite Muslims hold a cutout of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as they attend a protest against Israeli strikes on Iran, in Baghdad, Iraq, June 16, 2025. REUTERS/Ahmed Saad

Iraq on razor's edge between Iran and US interests in new war

Middle East

As Israeli jets and Iranian rockets streak across the Middle Eastern skies, Iraq finds itself caught squarely in the crossfire.

With regional titans clashing above its head, Iraq’s fragile and hard-won stability, painstakingly rebuilt over decades of conflict, now hangs precariously in the balance. Washington’s own tacit acknowledgement of Iraq’s vulnerable position was laid bare by its decision to partially evacuate embassy personnel in Iraq and allow military dependents to leave the region.

This withdrawal, prompted by intelligence indicating Israeli preparations for long-range strikes, highlighted that Iraq’s airspace would be an unwitting corridor for Israeli and Iranian operations.

Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’ al-Sudani is now caught in a complicated bind, attempting to uphold Iraq’s security partnership with the United States while simultaneously facing intense domestic pressure from powerful, Iran-aligned Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) factions. These groups, emboldened by the Israel-Iran clash, have intensified their calls for American troop withdrawal and threaten renewed attacks against U.S. personnel, viewing them as legitimate targets and enablers of Israeli aggression.

keep readingShow less
George Bush mission accomplished
This file photo shows Bush delivering a speech to crew aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, as the carrier steamed toward San Diego, California on May 1, 2003. via REUTERS

Déjà coup: Iran war activates regime change dead-enders

Washington Politics

By now you’ve likely seen the viral video of an Iranian television reporter fleeing off-screen as Israel bombed the TV station where she was recording live. As the Quincy Institute’s Adam Weinstein quickly pointed out, Israel's attack on the broadcasting facility is directly out of the regime change playbook, “meant to shake public confidence in the Iranian government's ability to protect itself” and by implication, Iran’s citizenry.

Indeed, in the United States there is a steady drumbeat of media figures and legislators who have been loudly championing Israel’s apparent desire to overthrow the regime of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

keep readingShow less
Ukraine NATO
Top photo credit: August 2024 -- Led by the United Kingdom and involving trainers from 12 other countries, Operation Interflex gives Ukrainian recruits a five-week crash course in everything from infantry tactics to combat first aid, preparing them to defend their homeland. . (NATO/Flickr)

How NATO military doctrine failed Ukraine on the battlefield

Europe

The war in Ukraine has raged for over three years. As ceasefire talks loom, major European NATO members including Germany, UK, France and Denmark are planning to protect any future armistice by sending their troops as peacekeepers in a “Coalition of the Willing.”

Their goal is to deter the Russians from restarting the war. Unfortunately, deterrence comes from combat capability. Without it there is no deterrence at all. That capability is in question. NATO equipment and doctrine was developed for the Cold War and tested in the mountains of Afghanistan. It has not been tested in conventional war and needs to absorb lessons from the Ukraine war to offer a military option to the European elites, independent of the United States.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.