White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt recently defended President Trump’s proposal for U.S. involvement in Gaza, describing it as an “out-of-the-box idea.” She did not rule out the possibility of sending American troops to the region but clarified that the president has “not committed to putting boots on the ground.” Leavitt also stressed that the U.S. would not fund Gaza’s reconstruction, instead working with regional partners to address the issue. She framed the plan as a bold step toward achieving “lasting peace in the Middle East for all people in the region.”
This comes after Trump made headlines by suggesting the U.S. could “take over and own” the Gaza Strip. He proposed relocating Palestinians from the conflict-ridden area to “a beautiful area” where they could live more peacefully. During a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump criticized the ongoing violence in Gaza, calling it unlivable. “You can’t live in Gaza right now. I think we need another location,” he said, adding that the new location should “make people happy.”
Trump’s comments about long-term U.S. ownership of Gaza surprised many, as he stated, “I do see a long-term ownership position.” He claimed that everyone he had spoken to supported the idea of the U.S. controlling the territory. However, this proposal seems to contradict his usual “America First” approach to foreign policy, which has often emphasized avoiding overseas entanglements.
When asked about the possibility of deploying U.S. troops to Gaza, Trump did not dismiss the idea, saying, “As far as Gaza is concerned, we’ll do what is necessary. If it’s necessary, we’ll do that.” He also hinted at a potential announcement regarding Israel’s annexation of parts of the West Bank, suggesting it could happen within the next four weeks. Trump claimed that many in the region support his views, though no final decisions have been made.
Trump’s remarks have sparked confusion and debate, as they mark a significant shift from his previous isolationist stance. While he framed the proposal as a way to bring stability to the Middle East, critics question the feasibility and implications of such a plan. The international community continues to watch closely as details of this unconventional strategy unfold.
