Did Trump Really Revert from the Idea of Deportation?

During his meeting with the Irish Prime Minister at the White House, U.S. President Donald Trump stated that he would not expel Palestinians from Gaza, in response to a question posed by a journalist. Does this statement signal a reversal of Trump’s idea to deport Palestinians from Gaza?

Trump’s statement carries two possible interpretations:

1. 1. The first interpretation is that Trump does not consider his plan to be “expulsion” or deportation of Palestinians, but rather fulfilling their wishes. He likely did not fully grasp the question about deportation and was taken aback by it. He is convinced that his plan has the support of Palestinians in Gaza.

1. 1. The second interpretation is that Trump has indeed reversed his proposal to deport Gaza’s residents, realizing the difficulty of implementing such a suggestion, the Arab nations’ rejection of it, and his desire to achieve broader goals than simply controlling Gaza. Deportation could cause him more problems than the potential benefits of gaining control over Gaza.

In truth, this debate is inconclusive, and it would be risky to analyze his stance on deportation based solely on a single statement he made during this meeting. Many statements Trump has made have been later reversed or proved to be more extreme than their actual intent. Even Gaza itself bears witness to his previous statements, like the one about releasing all Israeli prisoners at once within a set timeframe, which ultimately led to no results.

However, one can take a risk in interpreting the context behind Trump’s statement, which may suggest that the idea of deportation is no longer a serious agenda item for the U.S. administration. This interpretation can be supported by another statement from Trump regarding the annexation of the West Bank.

During a joint meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in which Trump presented his Gaza deportation plan, he promised to review the annexation of the West Bank within four weeks and announce his stance on the issue. The result was that, after four weeks, nothing happened, and the White House issued no statement regarding the West Bank annexation plan.

Trump believed that deportation was “creative thinking outside the box,” a description that Israelis themselves used for Trump’s proposal. But this idea faced strong Arab opposition, along with a new Arab initiative aimed at reconstructing Gaza and resolving the political deadlock, which has been defined by not granting Palestinians their national and political rights.

The Arab initiative took a political direction similar to Trump’s approach, offering not only a plan for Gaza’s reconstruction but also a clear, scheduled political framework for “peace”—a word Trump often uses.

While Trump’s approach is to raise the bar of demands to get what he wants, the Arab initiative came with a political ceiling that exceeded reconstruction and prevented deportation, aiming to free Gaza from the grip of the deportation idea that Trump had proposed. This idea had already taken root in the Israeli imagination, transforming into a project within Israel’s Ministry of Defense.

The Arab and international positions played a significant role in curbing this plan of Trump’s. Regardless of his recent statement, the most important factor is that he has not reiterated the deportation idea. His silence on the matter is more telling than any single statement. Not discussing it indicates either a retreat from the proposal or doubt within the U.S. administration about its viability.

By contrast, when we compare the repetition of Trump’s other plans, the Gaza deportation idea has not received much attention lately, especially compared to issues like the metals deal with Ukraine, the Greenland annexation, or imposing tariffs on Canada. Trump continues to repeat and boast about those plans, but his deportation proposal regarding Gaza seems to have faded from his agenda.

The U.S. administration understands that ceasefire negotiations in Gaza will lead to realities that oppose deportation. This was evident in talks held by U.S. hostage envoy Adam Boehler with Hamas, discussing a truce for at least five years in Gaza—well beyond Trump’s term in office and Netanyahu’s tenure.

Boehler confirmed that the talks were backed by Trump himself, which further suggests that deportation is not a priority for Trump or his administration. Regardless of the success or failure of these negotiations, what matters here is the clear signal that the deportation proposal is no longer considered realistic or practical by the U.S. administration.

Moreover, Trump understands that deportation contradicts his most important goal of making peace in the Middle East, according to his own understanding and definition of peace. Deportation undermines all of his plans to revive normalization efforts in the region, stabilize it, and prevent wars.

Deportation threatens regional stability and risks restarting the Israeli-Arab conflict back at its starting point in 1948, when Israel expelled Palestinians from their homeland. Deportation will not solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; rather, it will take it back to square one, as both Trump and Israel mistakenly believed that the conflict had already been resolved. There is a contradiction between stability and deportation, and between normalization and deportation.

Therefore, there are indicators more important than Trump’s single statement that suggest a retreat from the deportation idea. His silence on it is one indicator, and his actions—or lack thereof—are another indicator of this idea’s decline or possible abandonment.

Nevertheless, one should not underestimate the influence of the Zionist faction behind Trump, including figures like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor Michael Waltz, and others who may push for the proposal to remain on Trump’s agenda. Additionally, this idea may be strongly supported by Israel, which is waiting for the opportunity to implement it or, at the very least, preparing for it seriously.

Trump’s reversal on this proposal will have an impact on the Israeli side. In fact, voices in Israel are increasingly rising against this idea, either for moral reasons or political considerations, seeing it as an impractical plan. Discussing it could harm Israel both regionally and internationally, in addition to threatening the lives and safety of Israeli prisoners and hostages.