On August 27, 2025, a closed-door White House policy session convened U.S. President Donald Trump, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Trump’s son-in-law and former Middle East advisor Jared Kushner.
Gaza was the agenda, its decades-long conflict, worsening humanitarian crisis, and fresh controversy regarding post-conflict governance. Senior administration personnel, such as special envoy Steve Witkoff, also attended, as officials described it as a routine policy briefing rather than a diplomatic breakthrough.
Nonetheless, the roll call of participants and the content of the agenda reflect increased efforts to set a post-conflict agenda in a war that has dragged on unresolved after nine months of war mobilization. The session coincided with frozen efforts at a truce, heightening famine-like conditions in Gaza, and persistent calls by humanitarian organizations for mass distribution of relief.
Hostage crisis and humanitarian aid delivery
At the heart of the gathering were talks on the Israeli hostage situation and the catastrophic humanitarian crisis confronting Gaza’s 2.3 million people. The Trump administration demanded it was necessary to urgently open up humanitarian channels, provide food and medicine, and negotiate a deal for increased international access to relief. US officials claimed the crisis is currently at famine-level in northern Gaza and that immediate logistical planning needs to be done in order to avoid further casualties.
Post-conflict governance considerations
The summit also broached the topic of Gaza’s governance post-conflict, a politically sensitive issue without a consensus in the works between world powers. Trump advisors reportedly floated proposals for interim control by a multinational force, possibly excluding Hamas, still designated as a terrorist group by the US and Israel. The negotiations are purely theoretical, however, given the continuation of ongoing violence and lack of holistic negotiating spaces.
The roles of Blair and Kushner in Middle East diplomacy
Tony Blair’s presence adds an aspect of institutional memory to the discussion. Blair has remained engaged in the Middle East after leaving office, as the head of the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change and engaging in backchannel diplomacy with Palestinian and Israeli leaders. His advocacy for economic development in Palestinian territory is an enduring belief in peacebuilding through markets, but critics contend that such an approach does not address deeper political issues.
Blair’s return to this policy ground marks attempts to leverage past diplomatic paradigms. However, his record on Iraq and past efforts with collapsed peace processes temper expectation of his role in ending current complexity.
Jared Kushner and strategic relationships
Jared Kushner’s ongoing influence in Middle Eastern policy remains unchecked even though he does not have an official position in the current administration. His personal connections to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Gulf leaders played the key to the achievement of the Abraham Accords, and Kushner is now directly involved in informal advisory capacities on rebuilding after Gaza. Kushner’s inclusion suggests that the Trump administration puts a value on continuity in regional diplomacy and employs long-term personal relationships to inform future negotiations.
Kushner’s assumptions, built on a transactionalist understanding of diplomacy, appear to inform present thinking emphasizing economic redevelopment as the path to stability, though these policies have themselves been criticized for underestimating the centrality of political rights and justice.
Trump’s “Riviera” concept and its implications
Donald Trump has played with a disputed vision for Gaza as a new Mediterranean economic hub: a “Riviera of the Middle East.” His administration has not offered any official plans but internal discussions reportedly include enormous infrastructure spending and proposals for tourism development. Critics say the vision is not grounded in reality on the ground and even opens the door to forced displacement for the sake of redevelopment.
Gaza’s physical devastation and displacement of over a million citizens severely curtail such ambitions. Without bedrock ceasefire and participatory political approach, demands for change are fanciful, if not politically incendiary.
Humanitarian constraints amid political pressure
Any diplomatic or planning for development is made difficult by continuing self-aggrandizing Israeli military activity, which has killed over 62,000 Palestinians since October 2023, according to local health agencies. Humanitarian groups are warning of impending famine and infrastructure destruction as entire neighborhoods of Gaza City are described as having been flattened. These realities put humanitarian access above long-term political goals and create a dilemma for US policymakers.
In addition, the limited room for negotiation on the part of the Israeli government is further restricted by the domestic pressures that Israel is experiencing, such as mass protests for the return of hostages and casualties of the military. Trump’s broad-brush approach has to run the gauntlet of numerous domestic, regional and international constraints.
Regional and international coordination
Following the White House situation room meeting on Gaza, Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer also met with US officials to coordinate continuous military and policy action. Secretary of State Marco Rubio then met with Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar and further indicated American interest in consulting with Israeli leaders both on operational issues for the immediate future as well as on long-term policy direction.
These diplomatic consultations are constructing a shared vision of security containment and political stabilization, though gaps persist regarding humanitarian access and Palestinian representation at high levels of planning. The challenge continues to be that of balancing Israeli security fears and regional and international pressure for protection of civilians and settlement of the conflict.
Navigating a difficult path forward
The Gaza conference encapsulates the difficulty of constructing coherent policy within one of the world’s most seen and longest conflicts. Political drama, humanitarian requirements, and the absence of inclusive negotiations all complicate constructing a functionable “day after” environment. Trump, Blair, and Kushner bring experience and institutional acumen, but their proposals need to crash into a radically altered geopolitical and social landscape.
This person has touched on the topic, writing about political positioning over humanitarian realities in Gaza policy-making:
Their observations echo broader concerns within the international policy community about the gap between strategic visions and operational feasibility.
As Gaza remains locked in a cycle of destruction, aid dependency, and political marginalization, the future of American policy will depend on whether its architects can align long-term ambitions with immediate humanitarian imperatives and inclusive diplomatic engagement. The decisions made in these early post-conflict planning stages could shape not only Gaza’s reconstruction but the trajectory of U.S. diplomacy and regional stability for years to come.
