Trump’s new plan to ‘take over’ Gaza condemned as ‘deranged’

On Saturday, as the second week of Donald Trump’s second term came to an end, a broad group of Arab nations announced their opposition to his proposal to relocate Palestinians from Gaza to Egypt and Jordan. The joint statement, signed by officials from several Arab countries, said that any such plan would inevitably threaten stability in the region.

Their concerns did not arise out of nowhere. On the contrary, earlier in the week, Trump abandoned decades of bipartisan U.S. foreign policy and publicly declared his belief that Palestinians should leave the Gaza Strip to “clean out” the enclave. The Washington Post’s David Ignatius noted soon after that the American president’s comments “astonished moderate Arab leaders who had been looking forward to working with him.”

A week later, as NBC News reported, the Republican went much further down the same radical path:

The Republican, at the same press conference, described his vision of the United States maintaining a “long-term ownership position” of Gaza.

So, for those keeping score, Trump — the first modern president to explicitly reference “manifest destiny” in an inaugural address — wants to acquire the entirety of Canada, the entirety of Greenland, part of Panama, and the Gaza Strip, which he said the United States will “take over“ and “own.”

He did not appear to be kidding.

What’s more, when asked about the possibility of deploying U.S. military forces to Gaza, the Republican added, “We’ll do what is necessary.”

Trump was also asked at the same press conference whether he has the legal authority to take a sovereign territory. He never quite got around to answering the question.

The president might’ve struggled with this point because, according to experts in international law, his plan is illegal.

The reactions on Capitol Hill were far from positive. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina was willing to go out on a limb and call Trump’s plan “problematic,” but Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia was far more direct, describing the proposal as “deranged” and “nuts.”

There was no shortage of international reactions along the same lines.

That said, there were plenty of GOP leaders who appeared content to go along with the White House's new line.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, predictably, told reporters that Trump’s proposal was a “bold, decisive move.” Senate Majority Leader John Thune was more muted, but he praised the president for wanting “a more peaceful and secure Middle East,” despite the many voices in the region who've said such a gambit would lead to less stability, not more.

In fairness, it’s important to emphasize that Trump is erratic and often confused, even about his own agenda, and it’s entirely possible that in the coming days, he’ll announce an entirely different vision. In fact, it’s equally possible that the president will try to gaslight the public and claim that he never actually endorsed a U.S. takeover of Gaza, despite what the world heard him say out loud.

For now, however, this is the White House’s current position.

Trump didn’t need yet another avoidable international incident, but he managed to create one anyway.

As the dust settles, spare a thought for those voters who backed the Republican ticket because they saw Trump as the candidate of foreign policy isolationism.

Those assumptions were not entirely ridiculous. Nearly five years ago, in remarks at the West Point graduation ceremony, the president declared, “We are restoring the fundamental principles that the job of the American soldier is not to rebuild foreign nations, but defend — and defend strongly — our nation from foreign enemies. We are ending the era of endless wars. In its place is a renewed, clear-eyed focus on defending America’s vital interests. It is not the duty of U.S. troops to solve ancient conflicts in faraway lands....”

Five years later, Trump is eyeing possible U.S. missile strikes into Mexico and the possible use of military force in Iran. He’s also threatening a NATO ally and vowing a “strong” response if Panama refuses to give us the Panama Canal. All of this comes against a backdrop of the Republican trying to acquire countries in the Western hemisphere that don’t want to be part of the United States, and now adding Gaza to his colonial ambitions.

If you voted for Trump because you expected foreign policy restraint, I have some awful news for you.