Fact check: Has Donald Trump officially proposed a resort development in Gaza?

1. What supporters and critics point to as the smoking gun: the leaked 38‑page plan that reshapes Gaza

A leaked 38‑page document widely reported in September 2025 lays out a comprehensive strategy called the Gaza Reconstitution, Economic Acceleration and Transformation Trust (GREAT Trust) that envisions Gaza transformed into a logistics and tourist hub, with explicit references to luxury resorts and a goal of turning Gaza into a “Riviera of the Middle East” ^[1]. The leak describes economic mechanisms, governance ideas and a proposed U.S. trusteeship period, and supporters present it as a feasible reconstruction blueprint, while opponents view it as a template for dispossession and geopolitical reordering ^{[1] [3]}.

2. Trump’s public messaging: AI videos, social posts and promotional imagery that amplify the idea

Donald Trump amplified the concept in public channels by sharing an AI-generated video visualizing Gaza transformed into a gleaming, resort-style urban landscape, including depictions of skyscrapers and a proposed Trump Tower, which bolstered perceptions that this vision had moved from plan to personal advocacy ^[2]. The use of AI visuals does not by itself constitute a legislative or contractual proposal, but it does signal intent and public promotion, and it has been used by critics to argue that the plan is more than an internal policy sketch ^[2].

3. Where reporting says the record is murky on “official” status

Several outlets reporting on the same documents and messaging note that the material appears to be a policy proposal or vision paper, not a formally enacted treaty, law or executive order placing U.S. government machinery behind immediate resort construction ^[5]. The distinctions matter: a leaked administrative plan and public advocacy differ legally and operationally from a signed agreement or authorized reconstruction contract; multiple analyses conclude the package reads like a policy playbook rather than a binding commitment ^{[5] [1]}.

4. Humanitarian, legal and identity objections raised by critics

Coverage focusing on the leaked plan raises alarms about forced or coerced displacement, tokenizing property with cryptocurrency, and the erasure of Palestinian civic identity, with many human rights advocates labeling aspects as tantamount to ethnic cleansing or digital dispossession ^{[1] [4] [3]}. These critiques emphasize that planning a luxury redevelopment premised on mass “voluntary relocation” or token incentives risks violating international humanitarian standards and marginalizing the original population, framing the proposal as morally and legally fraught ^{[1] [4]}.

5. Technical and financial mechanisms the documents propose, and why they matter

The GREAT Trust concept includes innovative but controversial financing ideas, such as tokenizing Gaza land using cryptocurrency to attract investment and offering digital tokens to Palestinians who cede property, coupled with an envisioned ten‑year trusteeship to stabilize governance and investment flows ^[4]. Proponents argue these tools could mobilize capital for rapid rebuilding; critics warn they enable “digital dispossession” and speculative profiteering and that such mechanisms lack clear legal safeguards or local consent frameworks ^{[4] [3]}.

6. Alternative and local perspectives that complicate the narrative

Regional and local reporting places the plan within broader agendas, noting Israeli political actors discussing coastal redevelopment or security enclaves, and commercial projects inside Israel that are not connected to the Trump document, underscoring a complex mosaic of competing projects and claims ^{[6] [7]}. These accounts suggest the “Riviera” idea is not monolithic: some proposals originate from Israeli municipal or private developers, while the leaked U.S. plan is one among multiple visions being floated for Gaza’s future ^{[6] [7]}.

7. How to interpret “officially proposed” in this context and the bottom line

Interpretation hinges on terminology: the leaked GREAT Trust document and Trump’s public AI promotion constitute a publicly circulated policy proposal and personal advocacy, but they do not equal a ratified treaty, signed reconstruction contract, or enacted legislative mandate to build resorts in Gaza. Thus, while there is clear published material and public messaging promoting resort-style redevelopment, the claim that Donald Trump has “officially proposed a resort development” depends on whether one counts a leaked administrative plan and social-media advocacy as an official governmental proposal or as proposals in the policy/advocacy realm ^{[1] [2] [5]}.

8. Final assessment and questions left open

Evidence shows a coherent, widely reported plan tied to Trump’s circle advocates transforming Gaza into a luxury destination, and Trump’s own promotion amplified that vision, making the notion of resort development a clear component of the proposal narrative; however, there is no public record of a formal, legally binding U.S. government authorization that would convert the plan into an official construction program. Important questions remain about consent, legal authority, financing, and on-the-ground implementation, and these unresolved issues are central to ongoing debate and criticism ^{[1] [4] [3]}.