Trump's Gaza 'takeover' rankles America First conservatives, allies suggest negotiator-in-chief is at work

President Donald Trump’s remarks about the U.S. potentially taking control of Gaza sent shockwaves through Washington, but his allies argue that the statement is a negotiation tactic aimed at pressuring regional actors to find a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

During a Tuesday speech, Trump declared, “The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a job with it, too. We’ll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous, unexplored bombs and other weapons on the site.”

His suggestion of relocating Palestinians to neighboring countries like Egypt and Jordan was swiftly rejected by Arab leaders. The proposal would mark a major shift in U.S. policy and is already facing opposition from America First conservatives who advocate for reduced U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) criticized Trump’s remarks, writing on X, “I thought we voted for America First. We have no business contemplating yet another occupation to doom our treasure and spill our soldiers’ blood.”

Sources told the New York Times that Trump has been entertaining the idea for weeks, influenced by Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff’s recent assessment of dire conditions in Gaza. However, the concept was not part of a pre-planned strategy by his administration before Trump publicly announced it alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House.

A U.S. takeover would likely involve deploying troops to maintain security, requiring congressional approval and funding for reconstruction efforts. On Thursday, Trump elaborated on his vision via Truth Social, stating that Gaza would be transferred to U.S. control at the end of the conflict, while Palestinians—including “people like Chuck Schumer”—would be resettled in “safer and more beautiful communities” elsewhere in the region.

Trump emphasized that under U.S. supervision, Gaza could be transformed into “one of the greatest and most spectacular developments of its kind on Earth”—without requiring U.S. military presence. He insisted this would bring stability to the region.

At a press briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt downplayed concerns, asserting, “The president has not committed to putting boots on the ground in Gaza. He has also said that the United States is not going to pay for the rebuilding of Gaza.” She described Trump’s plan as an “out-of-the-box idea” aimed at achieving “lasting peace in the Middle East.”

Even some of Trump’s political opponents acknowledged the impact of his remarks. Democratic Senator John Fetterman called the proposal “provocative” and said it could help spark a more “honest conversation” about Gaza’s future.

Simone Ledeen, a former Pentagon official, suggested Trump was using a familiar Middle Eastern negotiation tactic: “Public posturing is part of the process. This isn’t messaging for Americans—it’s directed at the Middle East, signaling that the current approach has failed and that new ideas are needed.”

National Security Advisor Mike Waltz echoed this sentiment on CBS, suggesting Trump’s comments could “bring the entire region to the table with their own solutions.” He pointed out the immense challenges ahead: “How are those miles of rubble going to be cleared? How will unexploded bombs be removed? How will people physically live there for at least the next decade?”

The ongoing war between Israel and Hamas has resulted in over 46,000 Palestinian deaths, according to the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry, with nearly 2 million people displaced.

An Israeli official suggested that Trump’s idea might not be entirely unwelcome among regional powers. Former intelligence officer Avi Melamed told Fox News Digital that while countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE would not publicly endorse U.S. control of Gaza, they “would not shed a tear” over it, as they see Hamas as a direct threat but are unwilling to assume control themselves.

Rich Goldberg, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, suggested that Trump was deliberately “moving the Overton window” to redefine what solutions are possible. He emphasized that the priority should be convincing Muslim-majority nations to accept displaced Palestinians.

Goldberg added, “Egypt and Jordan need to be honest. They don’t want the Gaza population. They fear they could be radicalized and destabilize their governments. Or they just don’t want to lose their political leverage against Israel.”

Trump could use U.S. diplomatic influence to pressure these nations—offering benefits like Major Non-NATO Ally status to those willing to cooperate while threatening to revoke such status from those who refuse.

“That designation carries global weight,” Goldberg concluded.

This article was reported by journalist Angelia.