Trump sets Sunday deadline for Hamas to accept peace deal
President Donald Trump has put a hard line on diplomacy, setting a 6 p.m. Eastern deadline this Sunday for Hamas to accept a proposed peace agreement that he says already has broad regional support.
This is not a soft ask or a slow negotiation strategy; it is a pressure point designed to force a clear choice on the table and to test whether Hamas is willing to accept an end to violence in exchange for security and concessions.
What Trump said and why it matters
“An Agreement must be reached with Hamas by Sunday Evening at SIX (6) P.M., Washington, D.C. time. Every Country has signed on!” Trump announced.
His message was blunt and theatrical, the kind of direct talk his supporters expect, and it served two purposes: to show leadership and to put the onus squarely on Hamas if talks collapse.
For Republicans and many conservatives, this is exactly how statecraft should look when dealing with terror groups—clear deadlines, public accountability, and a refusal to reward bad actors with endless bargaining.
“Hamas has been a ruthless and violent threat, for many years, in the Middle East! They have killed (and made lives unbearably miserable), culminating with the October 7th MASSACRE, in Israel, babies, woman, children, old people, and many young men and women, boys and girls, getting ready to celebrate their future lives together,” he posted on Truth Social.
That passage underscores the moral clarity driving the deadline: the administration is framing the deal as an answer to decades of terror and a response to the worst single day of mass violence in recent regional history.
The bipartisan instinct to protect civilians and punish perpetrators runs through the rhetoric, and the president is using both moral outrage and diplomatic muscle to rally allies and isolate Hamas.
“Fortunately for Hamas, however, they will be given one last chance! Great, powerful, and very rich Nations of the Middle East, and the surrounding areas beyond, together with the United States of America, have agreed, with Israel signing on, to PEACE, after 3000 years, in the Middle East,” he added. “THIS DEAL ALSO SPARES THE LIVES OF ALL REMAINING HAMAS FIGHTERS! The details of the document are known to the WORLD, and it is a great one for ALL! We will have PEACE in the Middle East one way or the other.”
The promise that the deal spares lives while promising peace is a wager: it offers a corridor for de-escalation, coupled with a stern timetable and implied consequences if Hamas refuses.
Republicans who back the approach argue that tough diplomacy tied to clear outcomes and a credible threat of enforcement is the best route to lasting stability.
The timing matters. Deadlines force decisions, and decisions create political and strategic clarity that ambiguous negotiations never achieve.
Trump’s deadline also signals to regional partners that the United States is willing to anchor a settlement and to make sure its allies hold the line, not endlessly hedge over minor concessions.
That kind of pressure can provoke backlash, but it can also compel weaker actors to accept a deal they might otherwise avoid when they expect the international community to blink.
Critics will call the move theatrical and risky, saying such public ultimatums can backfire or reduce diplomatic flexibility at the last minute.
Those are legitimate concerns, but from a conservative perspective the risks of inaction are often greater: unchecked terror groups regroup, civilian casualties rise, and instability spreads outward into neighboring countries and global markets.
The calculus here favors forcing Hamas into a binary decision where support for violence has an explicit cost and restraint has a tangible reward.
Beyond the immediate standoff, this moment is being pitched as a test of American leadership and coalition-building in a region that has rarely seen a unified approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Trump’s claim that “Every Country has signed on” is part of the selling point: this is not a unilateral pressure play but an attempt at a broad diplomatic front where multiple actors bear responsibility for the outcome.
That helps insulate U.S. policymakers from accusations of acting alone if enforcement measures are needed after the deadline passes.
If Hamas accepts, the narrative will be: firm American leadership produced a diplomatic breakthrough that spared lives and produced a roadmap for peace.
If Hamas refuses, the administration and its supporters are signaling they will treat the refusal as the opening for a more forceful response meant to dismantle the group’s capacity to wage large-scale attacks.
Either way, Republicans see value in clarity and resolve rather than indefinite, open-ended bargaining that only emboldens extremists.
