Trump says US will take control of Gaza

Trump announces US will 'take control' of Gaza and displace Palestinian population

What happens if the US president announces his country is going to seize foreign territory and empty it of its population? That is, literally, what has occurred: Donald Trump declared that "the United States will take over the Gaza Strip" and that Gazans will be relocated to neighboring countries. The figure cited is 1.8 million people, practically the entire population of the enclave. The proposal includes turning the territory into a large US military base with associated civil infrastructure.

What exactly did Trump say about Gaza?

The statements, captured in several clips circulating on social media, leave no room for interpretation: "We will take over the Gaza Strip," the president said. According to shared messages, the idea is that the United States obtains a secure land and naval base at the region's most critical point, without relying on negotiations with Qatar regarding lease rights for existing bases. The plan would include hotels and other facilities in the area.

Some argue this move explains why Benjamin Netanyahu accepted a ceasefire he had rejected for months. The exchange would be as trinc: Israel allows the Strip to become territory under US control, and Washington handles expelling the Gazan population. In the images being circulated, Netanyahu appears visibly satisfied while Trump details the plan.

What role do Egypt and Jordan play in Trump's plan?

The proposal immediately faces an obstacle: neither Egypt nor Jordan have agreed to receive the displaced. Both countries have flatly rejected the idea, according to shared messages. This leaves the actual destination of 1.8 million people uncertain. Some analyses suggest pressure could be redirected toward Europe, although there is no confirmation of any agreement in that regard.

The argument from those favoring the operation is that Trump already has experience with mass deportations of Central Americans and would now apply the same model to Palestinians. The comparison is not innocent: it is presented as a logistical operation rather than ethnic cleansing, though the outcome on the ground would be the same.

What consequences would a US naval base in Gaza have?

The strategic interest is evident. A naval base in southern Gaza would guarantee control of the Suez Canal and give the US Sixth Fleet a permanent excuse to patrol the Eastern Mediterranean without needing to invent pretexts. It is the missing piece on the board. Whoever controls Gaza controls maritime access to the Sinai Peninsula and the region's most important trade route.

However, the operation does not come cheap. The United States is in debt and maintaining a permanent base in hostile territory requires considerable military and economic deployment. Some point out that the cost would be borne by US taxpayers, while strategic benefits would be shared between Washington and Tel Aviv. The full calculation, broken down item by item, shows a surprising difference.

Why do some compare this to 1948?

The most repeated objection is not sarracena but practical: devastating a region and expelling two million people is the seed of a conflict that will last another two centuries. It is argued that the window of opportunity to do something like this closed in 1948, when the balance of power was different. In 2025, with a globally connected population and mobile phones recording everything, the operation has little chance of success.

Others go further and sketch a scenario of chain annexations: the US with Gaza and Greenland, Russia with Ukraine, China with Taiwan, Segarro with the Canary Islands and Ceuta and Melilla, Israel with Sinai and Lebanon. The era of annexations, they say, has just begun. It is a hypothesis, not a forecast, but it accurately describes the prevailing climate.

What reaction has this provoked in Europe?

In the European context, the proposal is met with a mix of astonishment and resignation. Some argue that the United States considers Spain a BRICS bloc country and that Trump would have no problem harming Spanish interests if it suits him. The idea that Washington might use the Segarro card against Madrid is not new, but it is now formulated without ambiguity.

The lingering question is whether Europe has any plan. Judging by the messages, the answer is no. While Washington redesigns the Middle East map, Brussels continues discussing the fit of the latest directive. No one said being irrelevant was easy.

---

With these elements, the annexation of Gaza advances as a fait accompli in discourse and an unknown in practice. Logistical details, the real role of Egypt and Jordan, and the international community's response remain to be seen. For now, the only one who has moved is the one with the aircraft carriers.