With the first phase of the Trump 20-point peace plan for the Israel-Gaza war already underway, and with the recently concluded international peace summit in Egypt being co-chaired by Donald Trump, a realistic chance of lasting peace may finally be on the horizon. With the Trump administration optimistic about maintaining a stable cease-fire, implementation of the truce will require substantial diplomatic heft to bring all warring sides to compromise. In this background, it would be prudent to analyse how Donald Trump’s outlook and the resultant policies on the Israel-Gaza issue have evolved over time.
Trump 1.0: Dominantly Pro-Israel
Before and during his first term as President, Trump was emphatically pro-Israel in his approach. He sought to realign the US with long stated Israeli positions. To that effect, among his many moves were recognising the contested holy city of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in 2017, and shifting the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to the new capital. Next, he issued a proclamation recognising Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. The move, enacted right before the Israeli elections of 2019, was a major departure from the long standing diplomatic and legal position that Golan Heights was occupied Syrian territory, awaiting negotiation and resolution. Subsequently, Trump hardened his stance by ending the US funding to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in Near East (UNRWA), thereby creating a major dent to the humanitarian aid being provided to Palestinian areas, including Gaza. The watershed moment of his first term, however, was the signing of the Abraham Accords in 2020. With Arab-Israel normalisation the ultimate goal, it strengthened Israel’s position in the region while keeping the Palestinian question unresolved, thus marginalising the Palestinians and Gaza as a whole. One of the outcomes of the accords was the depoliticization of Gaza, where it became a regional question of containment rather than an issue of liberation or justice. Thus, while he did not maintain a specific policy on Gaza in his first term, Trump’s pro-Israel posture coupled with pressure on Palestine, ensured that he sidestepped the core issues of the Israel-Gaza stalemate.
On the Campaign Trail: From Unwavering Support to Conditional Critique
The period running up to the US election of 2024, was marked by the 7th October attack by Hamas on Israel, followed by the latter’s sustained retaliation. Trump was seen doubling down on his support for Israel, albeit combined with some scathing criticisms of its leadership. As the conflict unfolded and, in an attempt, to maintain strategic consistency, Trump promised ‘unbreakable support’ for Israel in its war against Hamas, if elected back to office.
Advancing his image of a deal-maker, Trump repeatedly promised to end the war upon assuming office, if Israel ‘failed to finish the problem’ in Gaza. In addition to personal disagreements with Netanyahu, Trump also criticised Israel for “losing the international PR war” due to poor strategic communication of its operations and continuing an offensive without clearly defined objectives.
In addition to advancing larger Israeli military aims through his rhetoric, Trump also vowed to bar refugees from Gaza back home. This was coupled with a stern condemnation of Hamas amid mounting casualties on both sides. Trump’s stance on Hamas hardened as time went on, where he harked upon disarming and defeating Hamas militarily, followed by replacing its role of governance within Gaza, something which resonated both with Israel and his voter base domestically. Trump recognised Hamas as the trigger for the war, while also maintaining that a durable and lasting peace deal would not be possible without its involvement.
Current Outlook of Trump 2.0: Military Leverage and Ceasefire Diplomacy
The policy outlook under the current administration stands on the twin pillars of substantial military aid to Israel and Trump’s signature ceasefire diplomacy.
US Military aid to Israel has seen a steady growth since the conflict began. A recent report released on the second anniversary of the Hamas attack puts the overall aid figure at approximately $22 billion between October 2023 and September 2025. The hard power assistance ranges from sophisticated weapon systems like Predator warheads and Apache helicopters to ammunition replenishment, coupled with flexible Foreign Military Financing (FMF) Grants for additional defence requirements. Such a posture ensures several goals for the US. First, that a key US ally like Israel retains Qualitative Military Edge (QME) in the entire region. Second, that Israel remains integrated to the US defence supply chains, and finally of a domestic political signal of America’s commitment to Israel’s security.
Subsequently, Trump has banked upon short-term, optics-heavy deals and negotiations to secure immediate, albeit fragile, ceasefires. Such transactional diplomacy accentuates further the image of Trump as “the dealmaker-in-chief”, rather than ensuring a sustainable resolution of the core issues. To that effect, he has publicly derided Israel for some of its actions, marking a departure from his first term as a follower of Israel’s narrative to an arbiter in the second. When it comes to dealing with Hamas, Trump has used a slew of ultimatums, deadlines and threats to pressurise and intimidate the group. This, along with, repeated controversial proposals by the US to “takeover” Gaza, with promises of reconstruction, housing, and economic development of the Strip, has been aimed at getting Hamas to the negotiating table.
Trump’s 20-point peace plan is a continuation of his earlier policy towards the issue, with some minor changes. While it furthers the security first approach through demilitarisation of Hamas, along with the timely release of hostages and reconstruction of Gaza, the deal also contains provisions for transitional governance with increased international oversight. With the deal deferring the question of Palestinian statehood, it seems to increase the role and obligations of the US in Gaza in the short term. The proposed international body that would oversee the redevelopment of Gaza, along with the much-discussed International Stabilization Force (ISF) would also operate under the supervision and directions of the US. For now, the plan remains largely aspirational and not all parties have signed on.
Conclusion:
It would be safe to assume that Trump’s promise to end the Israel–Gaza war has become a central pillar of his regional strategy in his second term. An early end to the war would not only solidify his image as a decisive deal-maker on the international stage but also bode well for him domestically, especially among war-weary voters.
