‘Huge Step Forward’: Former Biden Official Praises Trump’s Peace Deal Proposal To End Israel-Hamas War
Former Biden-era Deputy Assistant Brett McGurk surprised some observers by publicly praising President Donald Trump’s new proposal to end the Israel-Hamas war. The plan promises a sharp, Republican-style focus on security, demilitarization and reconstruction that aims to make Gaza a stable and depoliticized place. That kind of clarity is exactly the sort of plan conservative voters and allies wanted to see from Washington.
Trump unveiled his to end the war by making Gaza a deradicalized, terror-free zone and by redeveloping the region “for the benefit of the people,” which earned the support of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The blueprint tries to combine hard-line security measures with a long-term vision for civilian prosperity, something Republicans have been pushing for as the route to lasting peace. Promises of reconstruction tied to strict conditions on militants aim to break the cycle of violence and dependency that fuels extremism.
McGurk’s measured praise matters because he served in the prior administration and knows the nuts and bolts of negotiations. When a figure associated with a Democratic foreign policy team publicly calls the plan a “huge step forward,” that shifts the political argument from partisan spin to tangible progress. It suggests even critics can acknowledge the plan’s potential to produce results on the ground.
“I don’t care what side of this awful war or what side you’re on. Call on Hamas to take this deal. This is the end of the war,” McGurk said. “It basically says Hamas has to have no role in Gaza, they have to demilitarize, yeah, they’re gonna say ‘no way’ … But this is how you end the war and this is how you have a better life for Palestinians. And there’s stuff in here that Israel and members of Bibi’s coalition that they won’t like. It completely rejects that Gazans will be forced to leave Gaza, it says here that that cannot happen. Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza, it’s very clear in here. Again, I think this is a huge step forward.”
That endorsement underscores a simple point: if the plan actually demilitarizes Gaza and returns hostages, conservatives should back it without apology. Republicans have long argued that peace must be built on security first, not on vague promises or one-sided concessions. The proposal puts security at the center, then layers in governance changes and reconstruction incentive structures meant to prevent a return to terror.
McGurk also made a nod to continuity where it makes sense, noting elements of the plan appear to build on past work. “I commend the team for working on this, I think this builds on a lot of work that we did in the last administration, I have to say. But it’s significant and having Netanyahu say yes, I support your plan, is very significant,” McGurk continued. His words signal bipartisan possibilities when policy is serious and enforceable.
Here’s the political reality: Republicans want to see clear outcomes, not endless debates. The plan promises immediate suspension of hostilities and the return of hostages if both sides agree. It ties those immediate outcomes to a longer transition that removes Hamas as both a governing and military force in Gaza.
https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1972736025597219278
If implemented, the proposal would pause military actions while hostages are freed and then set up a temporary, technocratic governance model for Gaza. That approach aims to prevent spoilers from regaining control and to create breathing room for rebuilding schools, hospitals and infrastructure. Conservatives see value in a transitional, apolitical administration whose mandate is stability and reconstruction, not partisan jockeying.
Under the plan, no person will be forced to leave Gaza, a reassurance that avoids the moral and political quagmire of mass displacement. Instead, the emphasis is on external security measures and a civilian administration staffed by qualified Palestinians and international experts. That combination attempts to balance respect for residents with the uncompromising need to remove extremist capabilities.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly framed the plan as protecting Israel’s “security responsibility” and keeping control over perimeter safeguards. That kind of partnership with Israel is a non-negotiable for many Republicans. A U.S. policy that secures Israel and conditions aid and reconstruction on demilitarization aligns with core conservative principles about national security and support for allies.
“All our hostages, both those who are alive and those who died, all of them will return home immediately. Hamas will be disarmed. Gaza will be demilitarized. Israel will retain security responsibility, including a security perimeter for the foreseeable future. And lastly, Gaza will have a peaceful civilian administration that is run neither by Hamas nor by the Palestinian Authority,” Netanyahu said at a press conference at the White House. Those words mirror the hard-line expectations that won broad GOP support in recent years.
Cynics will say the plan is unrealistic and that Hamas will refuse to cooperate. That risk is real, but the alternative is endless war or half-measures that leave militias intact. From a conservative point of view, trying a plan that replaces terror governance with accountable civilian structures and reconstruction is preferable to perpetual conflict or withdrawal that leaves a vacuum for radicals.
Politically, Republicans can make a strong case for supporting a deal that achieves concrete surrender of weapons and returns of hostages while protecting civilians. Support should be conditional and monitored, with clear benchmarks and consequences for backsliding. That kind of tough love approach plays to Republican strengths: firm security, smart incentives and accountability.
The larger point is strategic: peace that sticks has to remove the root causes of violence and deny extremists the tools to regroup. Reconstruction money and international oversight must be tightly tied to verification mechanisms. If Trump’s plan can deliver that mix, then it deserves serious consideration from both sides of the aisle.
For voters and policymakers who value results over rhetoric, this proposal offers a test and an opportunity. It asks whether the world will choose a structured path to end suffering and restore order, or keep replaying the same failed scripts. For many Republicans, supporting a plan that secures Israel and offers Palestinians a chance at stability is the responsible, necessary route forward.
