Follow us on social

google cta
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
google cta
google cta

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)
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

keep readingShow less
Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports
Top image credit: A large oil tanker transits the Strait of Hormuz. (Shutterstock/ Clare Louise Jackson)

Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports

QiOSK

Hours after the U.S. and Israel launched a campaign of airstrikes across Iran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is warning vessels in the Persian Gulf via radio that “no ship is allowed to pass the Strait of Hormuz,” according to a report from Reuters.

The news suggests that Iran is ready to pull out all the stops in its response to the U.S.-Israeli barrage, which President Donald Trump says is aimed at toppling the Iranian regime. A full shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz would cause an international crisis given that 20% of the world’s oil passes through the narrow channel. Financial analysts estimate that even one day of a full blockade could cause global oil prices to double from $66 per barrel to more than $120.

keep readingShow less
What Pakistan's 'open war' on Taliban in Afghanistan really means
Top image credit: FILE PHOTO: Afghan Taliban fighters patrol near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in Spin Boldak, Kandahar Province, following exchanges of fire between Pakistani and Afghan forces in Afghanistan, October 15, 2025. REUTERS/Stringer

What Pakistan's 'open war' on Taliban in Afghanistan really means

QiOSK

Pakistan’s airstrikes on Kabul and Kandahar over the last 24 hours are nothing new. Islamabad has carried out strikes inside Afghanistan several times since the Taliban’s return to power. Pakistan claimed that the Afghan Taliban used drones to conduct strikes in Pakistan.

What distinguishes this latest episode is the rhetorical escalation, with Pakistani officials openly referring to the action as “open war.” While the language grabbed international headlines, it is best understood as part of a managed escalation designed to signal resolve without crossing red lines that would make de-escalation impossible.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.