Trump’s Bold Gaza Plan Envisions “Riviera of the Middle East,” Mass Relocation, and a Decade of U.S. Trusteeship

By: Chaya Abecassis

The Washington Post has revealed dramatic new details from a high-level White House meeting held last week, in which President Donald J. Trump presented his sweeping vision for Gaza’s future “day after” Hamas. The plan, striking both for its scale and its ambition, proposes the establishment of an American trusteeship over the territory for at least a decade, the relocation of its two million residents, and the transformation of Gaza into what Trump calls the “Riviera of the Middle East.”

According to senior officials cited by The Washington Post, the closed-door discussions — convened in the wake of nearly 700 days of devastating conflict between Israel and Hamas — laid out an unprecedented framework that would recast Gaza not as a perpetual war zone but as a showcase for American power, private investment, and regional cooperation.

At the heart of Trump’s proposal is the creation of an American trusteeship regime, a temporary governing authority that would supplant Hamas rule for at least ten years. The trusteeship would be charged with stabilizing the Strip, overseeing reconstruction, and guiding a massive redevelopment program meant to project prosperity rather than destruction.

Trump’s aides described the trusteeship as a transitional structure — designed to hold the territory while new institutions are built — but emphasized that it would operate on the basis of U.S.-Israeli agreement rather than negotiations with Palestinian political factions. Significantly, the plan does not include provisions for establishing a Palestinian state.

Trump’s vision is grandiose: luxury resorts lining the Mediterranean, six to eight “smart cities” powered by artificial intelligence, modern industrial zones, and robust infrastructure networks that would attract global investors.

Under the plan, billions of dollars in funding would be marshaled through private and public channels. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are expected to shoulder much of the financing, according to sources, while Washington would prefer Qatar’s involvement despite Israel’s deep skepticism of Doha’s ties to Hamas.

“This is about turning Gaza into a beacon of prosperity, a Riviera of the Middle East,” one source familiar with the discussions quoted Trump as saying. “If people have jobs, homes, and hope, terrorism will dry up.”

Perhaps the most controversial element is the mass relocation of Gaza’s entire population. Trump’s plan envisions moving all two million residents either outside the territory or into temporary designated housing zones within Gaza while new cities are built.

For those who remain, property owners would be promised rights to brand-new apartments in the smart cities that would eventually rise on the Strip.

For those who choose to leave Gaza altogether, the proposal includes generous financial incentives: a $5,000 relocation grant — a substantial sum in the local context — along with four years of rent assistance and one year of food stipends.

The inducements, Trump’s team argues, would not only provide immediate relief to Gazans but also create a voluntary path out of the cycle of war and poverty.

All of the investments would be centralized in a new fund: the Gaza Reconstitution, Economic Acceleration and Transformation Trust, or GREAT Trust — a name deliberately crafted to highlight Trump’s flair for branding.

The GREAT Trust would pool private and public investments from around the world but, crucially, would not require direct expenditures from the U.S. government budget. Trump’s advisers stressed that the model is designed to leverage international capital rather than saddle American taxpayers with new commitments.

“This is how we rebuild Gaza without endless U.S. aid packages,” one official told The Washington Post. “We bring in investors, we bring in the Gulf states, we make it a win-win for everyone except Hamas.”

On security, the plan gives ultimate responsibility to the Israel Defense Forces. The IDF would retain supreme authority over Gaza to prevent a resurgence of Hamas or other terrorist factions.

On the ground, however, private security contractors and third-party forces — potentially from Arab or European states — would provide day-to-day policing and stabilization. Within about ten years, the security portfolio would be handed over to vetted local forces.

For Israel, this arrangement ensures strategic control and minimizes the risk of another October 7-style catastrophe, while for the United States it reduces the prospect of direct American military entanglement.

Perhaps most strikingly, the plan pointedly avoids any mention of a Palestinian state. Trump’s aides described the framework as being based entirely on a bilateral U.S.-Israeli understanding, sidestepping years of international diplomacy centered on a two-state solution.

The omission underscores a core reality of Trump’s approach: the focus is on reconstruction, investment, and security — not on the political aspirations of Palestinian nationalism.

Trump’s offer of cash grants and subsidies to those who choose to leave Gaza is likely to draw both interest and outrage. For the average Gazan family, a $5,000 payout plus housing and food stipends could be life-changing. But critics are certain to brand the policy as a thinly veiled effort at incentivized population transfer.

“This is not only tempting — it’s transformative for an ordinary Gazan household,” said one Middle East analyst. “But it will be deeply controversial in international forums, where it may be framed as forced displacement, even if structured as voluntary relocation.”

The proposal has already sparked early debate among policy experts. Proponents argue it is the first serious effort to think beyond endless cycles of war by offering Gazans tangible hope and opportunity. Detractors, however, say the plan raises thorny ethical questions, could destabilize neighboring states if large numbers of Gazans relocate abroad, and sidesteps Palestinian self-determination.

Regional reaction is also uncertain. Saudi Arabia and the UAE may welcome a chance to invest in high-profile projects that boost their influence. Israel may embrace the security framework but worry about international criticism. And Qatar’s involvement — pushed by Washington but opposed by Jerusalem — could trigger friction among supposed allies.

In characteristic fashion, Trump’s Gaza proposal is sweeping and infused with marketing flair. The GREAT Trust, the promise of a “Riviera,” and the hardline refusal to deal with the brutal terrorists of Hamas or to recognize a Palestinian state all bear the hallmarks of his political style.

Whether the plan is viable remains to be seen. But after nearly two years of devastating conflict, and with Hamas militarily weakened, the moment may be ripe for bold ideas — however controversial.

As one official summed it up: “The choice is between rebuilding Gaza into something better or leaving it as a rubble pile where terrorism breeds. Trump believes he has the vision and the leverage to do the former.”

The plan unveiled at the White House is nothing if not ambitious. It aims to simultaneously end Hamas rule, transform Gaza’s economy, and give Israel and the United States enduring security guarantees — all while offering Gazans unprecedented relocation incentives.

Whether it is received as a pragmatic solution or a provocation will depend on how it is framed and whether international backers step forward to finance it. But one thing is certain: Trump has placed his stamp on the debate over Gaza’s future, once again redefining the conversation around one of the world’s most intractable conflicts.