Trump’s surprising stance on Gaza reinforces his broader expansionist objectives

President Donald Trump‘s astonishing remark about the U.S. potentially taking control of and redeveloping the Gaza Strip may have seemed unexpected, but it aligns with the expansionist goals of his new administration.

Since his return to the White House just over two weeks ago, Trump’s “America First” philosophy appears to have evolved into “America More,” as he becomes increasingly focused on territorial acquisition despite previously campaigning on a platform of avoiding foreign entanglements and “forever wars.”

During a press conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump suggested the idea of the U.S. owning Gaza, envisioning a resort where international communities could coexist peacefully. This casual proposal sent diplomatic ripples throughout the Middle East and beyond, reflecting Trump’s approach in his second term—treating relationships with allies like Canada and Mexico as primarily transactional and perceiving the global landscape as a vast business opportunity. This perspective was further emphasized by his recent proposal to establish a U.S. sovereign wealth fund.

He has also floated the idea of reclaiming the Panama Canal, suggested that the U.S. should acquire Greenland from Denmark, and repeatedly indicated that Canada might be integrated as the 51st state. However, polling data from Reuters/Ipsos reveals minimal public support for these notions, even within Trump’s own Republican Party. Concurrently, he has threatened economic repercussions for Canada and Mexico if they do not comply with his border-security demands.

Trump also suggested the possibility of relocating the over 2 million Palestinians residing in Gaza, arguing that the area has become uninhabitable following nearly 16 months of conflict between Israel and Hamas. Human rights advocates have condemned such proposals as a form of ethnic cleansing, asserting that any forced relocation would likely breach international law.

During a press conference with Netanyahu on Tuesday, Trump spoke in a manner reminiscent of his real estate background, acknowledging the difficulties faced by Palestinian residents in Gaza. “You’ll transform that into an extraordinary international destination. The potential of the Gaza Strip is remarkable,” Trump stated. “I believe representatives from around the globe will be present, and they will reside there. Palestinians will also live there. Many people will inhabit that space.”

Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and former advisor, previously referred to Gaza as “valuable” waterfront property. Netanyahu commended Trump for his innovative thinking, yet neither leader addressed the legal implications of Trump’s suggestions.

However, Will Wechsler, senior director of Middle East programs at the Atlantic Council, expressed skepticism about Trump’s genuine interest in a U.S. involvement in Gaza. He suggested that Trump might be employing his typical strategy of adopting extreme positions to enhance his negotiating power. “President Trump is adhering to his usual approach: altering the parameters to bolster his leverage in anticipation of future negotiations,” Wechsler remarked. “In this instance, it pertains to discussions regarding the future of the Palestinian Authority.”

CHALLENGES TO A ‘HAPPY ENDING’

Trump’s proposal appears to overlook the possibility of a two-state solution, instead suggesting a new framework where the U.S. might act as a mediator in the region. Jon Alterman, a former State Department official and current head of the Middle East program at the Washington Center for Strategic and International Studies, expressed skepticism about this approach. He noted that it is unlikely Gazans would choose to leave their homeland.

“Many Gazans are descendants of Palestinians who fled from areas that are now part of Israel and have been unable to return. I doubt many would be inclined to abandon even a devastated Gaza,” he remarked. “It is difficult for me to envision a positive outcome for a large-scale redevelopment of a depopulated Gaza.”

Hamas has governed Gaza since 2007, following the withdrawal of Israeli soldiers and settlers in 2005, yet the enclave is still classified as Israeli-occupied territory by the United Nations. Access to Gaza is controlled by both Israel and Egypt.

For many years, the United Nations and the United States have supported the idea of two states coexisting peacefully within secure and recognized borders. Palestinians seek a state encompassing the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, all of which were captured by Israel during the 1967 conflict with neighboring Arab nations.

On Tuesday, a large group of protesters assembled near the White House to voice their opposition to Netanyahu’s visit, with demonstrations persisting after the crowd received Trump’s comments regarding Gaza. Netanyahu remains firmly against the establishment of a Palestinian state.

The protesters chanted, “Trump, Bibi belong in jail, Palestine is not for sale.”

During his presidential campaign, Trump primarily advocated for isolationist policies, emphasizing the need to conclude foreign conflicts and reinforce national borders. He proposed that Europe should take the lead in supporting Ukraine against Russia, rather than the United States.

In his initial actions as president, Trump has concentrated on deporting undocumented migrants and reducing the size of the federal government, both key elements of his campaign platform.

Expansionist rhetoric was notably absent from his discourse, which could pose political challenges for Trump and his Republican supporters. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, public sentiment does not align with such views.

Only 16% of U.S. adults expressed support for the notion of pressuring Denmark to sell Greenland in a poll conducted on January 20-21, shortly after Trump’s inauguration. Additionally, 29% were in favor of reclaiming control over the Panama Canal.

Only 21% agreed that the U.S. has the right to expand its territory within the Western Hemisphere, and a mere 9% of respondents, including 15% of Republicans, believed that military force should be employed to acquire new territories.