Washington, 31 July 2026

Donald Trump announced on Thursday that an agreement has been reached for the "complete disarmament" of Hamas, though the militant group had not publicly confirmed the deal at the time of his statement.

In a post on his social media platform, Trump framed the announcement as a turning point for Gaza, writing: "The threat that emerged from Gaza on October 7 will NOT be allowed to rebuild!" He added: "Under this agreement, Gaza will finally be in the hands of a new Palestinian government that serves its PEOPLE." Trump closed with: "CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL ON THIS AMAZING DEVELOPMENT, THAT EVERYBODY SAID COULD NEVER BE ACHIEVED!"

The announcement came against the backdrop of Trump's broader regional diplomacy. His statement referenced the Board of Peace, a US-backed initiative he has promoted as a framework for post-war reconstruction in Gaza and for coordinating international stabilization efforts. The exact role of the Board of Peace in the reported disarmament arrangement was not detailed in Trump's post.

Hamas has not publicly responded

Hamas, the Islamist movement that has governed parts of Gaza and led the armed wing that carried out the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, did not immediately issue a public response. The group's silence left several core questions unanswered, including the timetable for any weapons handover, the mechanism for verification, and whether outside mediators had been formally engaged in the deal Trump described.

Israeli officials had not publicly confirmed the terms of any new arrangement at the time of Trump's announcement. Israel's government has insisted in past negotiations that any settlement require Hamas's full demilitarization, the release of all hostages taken on October 7, and an end to the group's governance role in the territory.

Trump's claim that Gaza would be placed "in the hands of a new Palestinian government" raised immediate questions about which authority he envisioned. He did not name an existing Palestinian faction or describe the composition of a transitional administration. Palestinian Authority officials and rival factions have long been at odds over how any post-war governance of Gaza should be structured.

Board of Peace and post-war governance

International mediators, including Qatar and Egypt, have historically brokered indirect talks between Israel and Hamas. Neither government publicly confirmed involvement in the agreement Trump described. Diplomats familiar with the back-channel talks have cautioned in recent months that public statements by principals do not always reflect finalized terms.

The October 7 attack, in which Hamas-led militants killed roughly 1,200 people in southern Israel and abducted more than 240 others, triggered the ongoing military campaign in Gaza. Subsequent cease-fire and hostage-release negotiations have repeatedly broken down, and humanitarian agencies have warned of widespread civilian displacement and a deepening aid crisis inside the territory.

Trump has positioned himself as a primary broker in the Gaza file, repeatedly invoking what he has called the Board of Peace as a vehicle for post-conflict governance. Critics have questioned whether the Board of Peace has a defined legal mandate or the institutional capacity to administer reconstruction at the scale required.

Why unilateral announcements can be risky

Analysts noted that unilateral announcements by heads of state can complicate negotiations rather than advance them, especially when the party whose disarmament is being claimed has not publicly signed on. Without confirmation from Hamas, it was unclear whether the agreement Trump described constituted a binding understanding, a framework, or an aspiration.

The White House did not immediately respond to requests for further detail on the timing, parties, or text of the arrangement. Aides pointed reporters back to Trump's social media statement as the authoritative account of the development.

If confirmed, the deal would mark a significant shift in the trajectory of the Gaza war, which has entered its second year with no comprehensive political settlement in place. Verification, enforcement, and the political future of the Palestinian territory would remain the defining challenges of any subsequent phase.