Fact check: What are the key differences between the Biden administration's and Trump's approaches to Israeli settlement expansion?

1. Why Washington’s Tone Matters — Biden’s Public Friction and Warnings

The Biden administration has articulated explicit frustration with Israeli decisions to legalize outposts and approve approximately 10,000 new West Bank units, framing such moves as directly detrimental to the two-state framework and long-term Israeli security ^{[1] [3]}. These statements include high-level diplomatic messaging and public rebukes aimed at signaling limits to US tolerance for unilateral expansion. The Biden approach emphasizes restoration of diplomatic norms and multilateral pressure, intending to preserve diplomatic space for reviving negotiations, but critics argue public admonitions have not yet reversed settlement approvals or slowed on-the-ground consolidation ^[4].

2. What “Deal of the Century” Left Behind — Trump’s Accommodation and Signals

The Trump administration’s policies, culminating in the so‑called “Deal of the Century,” shifted US posture by offering a framework that many Palestinians and international observers viewed as more accommodating to Israeli sovereignty claims over parts of the West Bank and less conditioned on halting settlement growth ^{[2] [1]}. That approach altered the diplomatic baseline: explicit US neutrality about certain settlement realities, combined with moves like embassy relocation and relaxed criticisms, reduced immediate international constraints and emboldened political actors in Israel who favor expansion. Settlement supporters publicly celebrated some Trump-era changes, seeing them as vindication of on-the-ground claims ^[2].

3. On-the-Ground Consequences — Legalization, Outposts, and De Facto Annexation Risks

Israeli actions to legalize outposts and approve tens of thousands of units have been characterized as steps toward de facto annexation by critics, particularly given domestic proposals to formalize extensive territorial control ^{[1] [4]}. Legalization retroactively converts previously unauthorized settlements into official municipal entities, altering demographics and planning regimes in ways that complicate future border negotiations. Analysts warn such moves create irreversible facts, reduce contiguous Palestinian land, and raise humanitarian and legal concerns, even as Israeli officials frame them as responding to housing needs and security realities ^[2].

4. Political Incentives in Jerusalem — Coalitions, Smotrich, and Settlement Momentum

Settlement expansion correlates with the rise of Israeli ministers and parties that prioritize territorial claims; Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s enhanced authority and proposals to annex large swathes of the occupied territory are cited as accelerants of expansionist policy-making ^{[4] [3]}. US administrations encounter these domestic incentives differently: Biden officials issue warnings and seek diplomatic leverage, whereas the Trump administration’s posture reduced the perceived cost of domestic Israeli expansionist actions. The interplay between Israeli coalition politics and US reaction shapes the pace and legalization choices that lead to settlement consolidation ^[3].

5. International Perception and Diplomatic Costs — Allies, Law, and Two-State Viability

The Biden administration’s criticisms aim to align with broader international concerns that settlement growth undermines peace prospects and violates norms regarding occupation and annexation ^[4]. Trump-era shifts fostered a realignment in which US unilateral policy choices diverged from many allies, altering international coalition dynamics. These swings affect UN debates, European responses, and Palestinian diplomacy; they also influence how third parties engage in mediation or apply pressure. Each US posture carries diplomatic costs: emboldening settlers in one case, and straining US-Israel ties in another when public rebukes escalate ^{[1] [2]}.

6. Disputed Outcomes — Effectiveness of Pressure Versus Quiet Diplomacy

Evaluations diverge on whether public criticism or tacit accommodation more effectively limits settlement expansion. Biden supporters argue public pressure is necessary to set red lines and preserve a negotiating framework, while proponents of the Trump-era approach contend that realpolitik adjustments acknowledge on-the-ground realities and may enable different negotiated outcomes ^{[3] [2]}. Empirical results through late September 2025 show continued settlement approvals despite both approaches, indicating that neither public admonition nor past accommodation has decisively reversed expansion trends ^{[1] [2]}.

7. What’s Missing from the Public Debate — Palestinian Agency and Legal Remedies

Coverage and policy pronouncements often underemphasize Palestinian political fragmentation, legal strategies, and international courts as variables that could alter settlement dynamics; the current discourse centers on US-Israel interactions while limitedly addressing Palestinian institutional responses ^[2]. Palestinian diplomatic efforts, appeals to international law, and civil society mobilization present alternative levers that may influence future outcomes. Analysts caution that focusing exclusively on Washington’s posture risks overlooking on-the-ground factors—land registries, municipal bylaws, and security arrangements—that materially determine whether settlements entrench or can be negotiated away ^[4].

8. Bottom Line: Policy Signals Shape Incentives but Don’t Solely Control Reality

The evidence through the cited reporting shows US administrations shape incentives—Biden through public reproach emphasizing two‑state preservation, Trump through policy shifts perceived as permissive—but settlement momentum depends on Israeli domestic politics, legal steps, and international responses ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Both approaches have influenced diplomatic space without halting expansion; the sustained trend of legalization and approvals by Israeli authorities indicates that changes in US posture alone have not produced a decisive reversal in settlement growth as of the reporting dates cited.