What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
February 4, 2025 Recap
President Trump and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a meeting in front of the press in the Oval Office at The White House. They addressed key issues, including the ongoing war in Gaza, hostage negotiations, Saudi-Israeli normalization, and broader Middle East security concerns. Trump’s comments, in particular, reflected his characteristic self-promotion. His claim that he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for brokering the hostage deal came across as self-serving, overshadowing the gravity of the humanitarian crisis. Netanyahu, while maintaining a strong stance on Israel’s security objectives, provided little insight into a realistic endgame for Gaza. His commitment to securing hostages while simultaneously vowing to destroy Hamas’ military and governance capabilities raises concerns about how Israel intends to balance military operations with diplomatic negotiations. His refusal to directly address Trump’s controversial proposal to permanently relocate Palestinians outside of Gaza further demonstrated a lack of a coherent plan for post-war governance.
Regarding normalization with Saudi Arabia, Trump stated that discussions were ongoing but complex. He denied reports that Saudi Arabia was demanding recognition of a Palestinian state as part of the deal, instead insisting that all parties primarily seek peace. When asked about the political feasibility of a deal in Israel, Trump expressed confidence that it could be achieved despite the complexities. While supportive of negotiations, Netanyahu maintained that any agreement must align with Israel’s war objectives.
The conversation also touched on the October 7th attack by Hamas, with Netanyahu reiterating that Israel would not tolerate another such attack and would ensure Hamas is permanently dismantled. Trump compared those who downplay the attacks to Holocaust deniers, emphasizing the importance of remembering the events.
One of the most striking aspects of the discussion was Trump’s suggestion that Gaza’s residents should be permanently resettled in other Arab countries, such as Egypt and Jordan. This proposal disregards both the historical significance of Gaza for Palestinians and the political realities of regional actors, many of whom have explicitly rejected such a plan. His claim that Arab nations would ultimately accept Palestinian refugees contradicts their stated positions and reflects a simplistic view of Middle Eastern diplomacy. Rather than acknowledging the legal and humanitarian complexities of forced displacement, Trump framed the issue as a logistical solution with little regard for Palestinian self-determination.
When asked about the possibility of Israeli settlements in Gaza, Trump dismissed the idea, calling it too dangerous and unsustainable. Netanyahu did not provide a direct response but reinforced the priority of eliminating Hamas. The discussion on Iran also exposed a gap between rhetoric and reality. Netanyahu’s remarks on Iran’s nuclear ambitions were expectedly firm, but they failed to outline a concrete approach beyond reiterating Israel’s long-standing opposition.
Another key topic was Qatar’s role in hostage negotiations. While Trump had previously criticized Qatar for funding terrorism, he acknowledged that the country was now playing a constructive role in negotiations. Lastly, His assertion that conflicts such as the Israel-Hamas war and the Russia-Ukraine war would never have happened under his leadership was speculative at best, ignoring the complexities and long-standing tensions in both regions. Furthermore, his insistence that Iran was significantly weakened during his presidency oversimplified the geopolitical landscape, neglecting the fact that Tehran continued to exert influence through its regional proxies despite U.S. sanctions.
The press conference showcased more political posturing than substantive policy direction. Trump’s preference for sweeping declarations over detailed solutions, coupled with Netanyahu’s singular focus on military objectives, failed to provide a clear vision for long-term stability in the region. While both leaders emphasized their commitment to peace, their lack of concrete steps toward a sustainable resolution highlighted the fundamental disconnect between rhetoric and reality in their approach to Middle East policy.
President Trump’s post-meeting press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was a calculated display of strong rhetoric, but it also revealed significant flaws in his approach to Middle East policy. While he emphasized the “unbreakable” alliance between the U.S. and Israel, his remarks leaned heavily on self-congratulation rather than offering substantive new policy directions. His critique of the Biden administration’s foreign policy, blaming it for the October 7 Hamas attack and broader instability, was overly simplistic and ignored the complexities of the region’s long-standing tensions. His claims that such attacks would not have happened under his leadership were speculative at best and lacked supporting evidence beyond his usual tough-on-terror stance.
One of the most controversial aspects of Trump’s speech was his proposal for U.S. ownership and redevelopment of Gaza, which was vague, legally dubious, and politically unrealistic. The idea of displacing Palestinian residents and turning the region into an economic hub under foreign control echoed outdated colonial-era thinking rather than a viable peace plan. Trump’s dismissal of rebuilding efforts under current Palestinian leadership also failed to acknowledge that any solution to Gaza’s devastation would require long-term diplomatic engagement rather than unilateral U.S. intervention.
His emphasis on reinstating a "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran was unsurprising but failed to address the limitations of this strategy. While his administration’s tough stance previously weakened Iran’s economy, it did not prevent the country from advancing its nuclear program or supporting proxy groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Simply doubling down on sanctions without offering an alternative diplomatic pathway risks further regional instability rather than curbing Iran’s influence.
Trump’s boasting about past achievements, such as moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and brokering the Abraham Accords, overshadowed the current challenges that have emerged since those policies were enacted. His optimism about a potential normalization deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia ignored the fact that such negotiations have been complicated by the ongoing Gaza conflict and shifting regional alliances.
Netanyahu’s comparison of Hamas to Nazis and Al-Qaeda, while effective in rallying support for Israel’s military actions, also reflected an absolutist stance that leaves little room for long-term diplomatic solutions.
President Trump's National Security Presidential Memorandum NSPM-2 lays out an aggressive strategy to neutralize Iran’s influence, prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons, and impose maximum pressure through sanctions, legal action, and diplomatic isolation. While the policy underscores a strong commitment to curbing Iran’s activities, it raises critical concerns regarding its practicality, effectiveness, and potential unintended consequences.
One of the memorandum’s key strengths is its clear strategic direction. It unambiguously defines objectives, such as denying Iran nuclear capabilities, countering its regional aggression, and dismantling its financial networks. Additionally, the comprehensive sanctions strategy ensures a robust economic stranglehold on Iran, particularly through restrictions on oil exports and financial transactions, which could limit the regime’s ability to fund proxy groups and military expansion. Furthermore, the emphasis on international coordination—such as rallying allies to isolate Iran in global organizations like the United Nations—demonstrates a broad, multi-pronged approach to containment.
However, the policy is deeply flawed in several aspects. It prioritizes punitive measures without any clear diplomatic pathway, making it unlikely to yield long-term stability. While economic pressure may force short-term concessions, the lack of engagement mechanisms risks pushing Iran further into clandestine nuclear development and closer ties with adversarial powers like China and Russia. The document also oversimplifies Iran’s role in regional conflicts, attributing blame for Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack and Houthi aggression solely to Tehran without acknowledging the broader geopolitical complexities at play. By imposing sweeping legal measures, such as impounding Iranian oil cargoes and pursuing financial restrictions in allied nations, the policy could face legal challenges and diplomatic pushback, particularly from countries that maintain economic ties with Iran.
Moreover, the directive to pressure China and Gulf nations to cut off financial dealings with Iran could strain U.S. relationships with key economic and strategic partners. Without their cooperation, sanctions enforcement may be ineffective or counterproductive, potentially driving Iran to expand its shadow economy and illicit trade networks. The memorandum’s lack of balance between coercion and diplomacy makes it unlikely to achieve its objectives in a sustainable way.
NSPM-2 presents a forceful but ultimately one-dimensional strategy. While it underscores the United States' firm stance against Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional influence, its heavy reliance on pressure without diplomatic alternatives risks escalating tensions rather than resolving them.
President Trump issued an executive order titled Withdrawing the United States from and Ending Funding to Certain United Nations Organizations, and Reviewing United States Support to All International Organizations. It aims to withdraw the U.S. from certain UN organizations and cut funding reflects a nationalist approach but risks diminishing U.S. diplomatic influence. While it cites concerns over inefficiencies, alleged anti-U.S. biases, and UNRWA’s reported ties to terrorism, the decision prioritizes disengagement over reform.
By exiting the UNHRC and reviewing UNESCO membership, the U.S. forfeits its ability to shape global policies, allowing adversarial nations like China and Russia to expand their influence. The order also lacks a strategy for institutional reform, relying instead on withdrawal as a blunt response. Additionally, defunding UNRWA could worsen humanitarian conditions and regional instability.
While addressing legitimate concerns, this move weakens U.S. leadership in global affairs, isolating the nation rather than leveraging its position to drive change within international organizations.
The Trump administration has begun deporting migrants to a holding facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, despite legal concerns from immigration lawyers. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that the move is part of President Trump’s commitment to stopping the U.S. from becoming a "dumping ground" for illegal migrants. The administration plans to expand Guantánamo’s capacity to house up to 30,000 migrants, though the initiative faces financial, political, and legal challenges.
Hundreds of U.S. military personnel have been deployed to Guantánamo in preparation for incoming deportees, and the number is expected to fluctuate under the direction of the Department of Homeland Security. The naval base has historically housed migrants intercepted at sea, but its facilities have been largely unused in recent years. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem defended the plan, stating that due process will be upheld and that expanding capacity at Guantánamo aligns with past practices. Despite anticipated legal challenges, the administration is proceeding with its efforts.