$10B Gaza Gamble: Trump Ups The Stakes

President Trump just put $10 billion on the table for Gaza—on the condition that Hamas is disarmed—testing whether hard leverage can succeed where UN-style diplomacy has repeatedly failed.

Quick Take

Trump launched the “Board of Peace” on Feb. 19, 2026, pitching it as a new framework to stabilize Gaza outside traditional UN-led channels.
The plan centers on conditional reconstruction funding tied to demilitarization, with an International Stabilization Force and rapid Palestinian police buildout.
The U.S. pledge is $10 billion but is described as pending congressional approval, making Capitol Hill a key bottleneck.
More than 40 countries attended, but several major powers participated only as observers, signaling caution about the board’s structure.

What Trump Announced in Washington—and Why It’s Different

President Trump convened the inaugural Board of Peace meeting on Feb. 19, 2026, in Washington, D.C., at the U.S. Institute of Peace, presenting a Gaza-focused security and reconstruction package built around enforceable conditions. The headline number was a $10 billion U.S. pledge, alongside billions more from member states and other commitments aimed at jumpstarting a broader $53–$70 billion rebuild estimate. The framework intentionally bypasses the usual UN-first approach by setting a new multilateral channel.

The board’s structure is also unusual: Trump is described as a lifelong chairman with veto power, a design that supporters view as a way to cut through slow, consensus-driven bureaucracy. Critics, however, point to that same concentration of authority as a reason bigger countries have kept their distance or stayed in “observer” status. Based on the available reporting, the board’s success hinges less on branding and more on whether its security sequencing—disarmament first, rebuilding next—can be enforced.

Money Commitments vs. the Real Price Tag of Reconstruction

Funding promises announced around the first meeting totaled roughly $17 billion in combined commitments, including the U.S. pledge, additional member-state money, and a UN-related commitment, plus a planned donor conference hosted by Japan. That early money matters, but it still sits far below the estimated overall reconstruction needs cited in the research. The board’s pitch is that concentrated early capital, tied to security compliance, can prevent “rebuild-and-repeat” cycles that leave taxpayers funding the same problems again.

Several commitments also reflect a blend of public and non-traditional donors. FIFA, for example, pledged $75 million for soccer-related projects, a detail that underscores how the board is trying to create visible “normal life” investments alongside heavy infrastructure work. That said, the sources indicate the U.S. share is pending Congress, and that reality makes oversight unavoidable. For Americans who watched years of overseas spending with blurry goals, the key question is whether the conditions are written tightly enough to prevent cash from propping up armed factions.

The Security Core: Disarmament, Police, and a 20,000-Troop Stabilization Force

The plan’s central demand is Hamas disarmament, paired with a new security architecture intended to hold territory and keep reconstruction sites from becoming militant infrastructure. Maj. Gen. Jasper Jeffers was identified as the commander of an International Stabilization Force described as 20,000 troops organized into five brigades, with Indonesia serving as deputy commander and additional early contributors including Morocco, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, and Albania. The proposed sequencing aims to reduce the chance that aid becomes a substitute for security.

On the Palestinian governance side, Ali Shaath—leading a technocratic administration tied to the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza—outlined an accelerated plan to recruit and deploy 5,000 police within 60 days, with a longer-term goal of 12,000. Training in Egypt and Jordan was part of the described pipeline. Reporting also noted strong interest from applicants. The limitation is straightforward: the research describes mixed signals on Hamas disarmament, meaning the policing timeline may collide with realities on the ground.

Diplomatic Pushback, Congressional Scrutiny, and What Comes Next

Several dynamics are unresolved. Politico reported skepticism and distance from larger countries, with concerns tied to Trump’s permanent control of the body and fears it could sideline existing international institutions. On Capitol Hill, Sen. Ed Markey questioned legality and congressional notification, while Sen. Jim Risch expressed support for peace efforts. These details matter because a $10 billion U.S. pledge “pending Congress” is not a talking point—it’s a gate that determines whether the board’s leverage is real or mostly rhetorical.

For conservative readers, the most concrete takeaway is that the board’s design ties money to measurable security outcomes—an approach that aligns with limited-government instincts about accountability and results. The risk, based on the reporting, is that enforcement collapses if Hamas refuses to disarm or if international participation stays shallow among major players. The next checkpoints are the promised police deployment timeline and the stabilization force’s actual movement into Gaza, alongside whether Congress authorizes the U.S. funding.