Which Middle East peace deals were signed during the Trump administration and what did each agreement entail?
Executive summary
During the Trump administration’s recent term, the administration brokered a high-profile Gaza ceasefire and hostage-release deal — presented as the first phase of a broader 20-point Gaza peace plan signed at a summit in Sharm el‑Sheikh on October 13, 2025 [1] [2]. U.S. officials and allies framed the agreement as ending major hostilities, freeing remaining hostages, and creating mechanisms (a transitional “Board of Peace” and international stabilization force) to oversee reconstruction and security in Gaza, even as critics say the plan leaves core political questions about Palestinian statehood unresolved [1] [2] [3].
1. What was signed: a phased Gaza “peace” agreement and ceasefire
The centerpiece of Trump’s Middle East diplomacy in 2025 was a document signed in Egypt that the White House called the “Gaza Peace Plan” or the “Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict,” and which implemented Phase I — a ceasefire and hostage‑release arrangement between Israel and Hamas — announced and signed during a world leaders’ summit in October 2025 [4] [2] [5]. Reuters and other outlets described that Israel and Hamas agreed to the first phase of a 20‑point plan that included a ceasefire and release of hostages; the UN Security Council later adopted a U.S. resolution seen as legitimizing transitional governance arrangements the plan envisions [1] [2].
2. What Phase I actually entails: cessation of hostilities, hostages, and international oversight
Reporting and official materials say Phase I secured a cessation of hostilities and facilitated the release of living hostages, with participating states endorsing a U.S.‑led model for reconstruction and interim governance — notably a U.S.‑chaired “Board of Peace” and an international stabilization force to oversee Gaza’s recovery [1] [4]. The UN resolution explicitly allows member states to take part in the Board of Peace and frames U.S. commitments to mediate a political horizon between Israel and the Palestinians [1].
3. What the broader plan claims to offer: a 20‑point (or 20‑plus) roadmap
The White House and allied statements presented the agreement as Phase I of a larger 20‑point plan aimed at a “comprehensive” settlement: freeing hostages, disarming Hamas in Gaza, and moving toward stability and reconstruction under multinational oversight [6] [7]. Administration allies highlighted the release of the last living hostages and the cessation of two years of war as immediate measures of success [7] [6].
4. Key omissions and enduring disputes noted by analysts
Multiple sources and experts flag what the plan does not resolve: it largely sidesteps the long‑standing question of Palestinian self‑determination and the future political status of Gaza and the West Bank; Palestinians broadly were not a party to negotiations described by outside commentators; and many of the plan’s long‑term goals remain unimplemented or dependent on future phases [3] [8] [9]. Foreign Policy and academic commentaries say most elements beyond the hostage releases appear “stillborn” or untested, and that Washington’s follow‑through is uneven [9] [3].
5. International reaction: political legitimacy vs. skepticism
The Trump administration secured public endorsements from some partners and obtained a UN Security Council resolution seen by Washington as legitimizing the transitional governance framework [1] [6]. But critics in and outside the region cautioned that normalizing arrangements among states that were already aligned with Israel — or building governance solutions without robust Palestinian political buy‑in — risks producing cosmetic stability rather than a lasting political settlement [8] [3].
6. Stakes and implementation challenges ahead
The plan’s success hinges on several unresolved items reported by multiple outlets: defining the Board of Peace’s authority and composition, specifying the rules and mandate of the international stabilization force, securing sustained reconstruction funds and troop contributors, and getting Palestinian political actors to accept a “political horizon” that many say must include an answer on statehood — questions that current reporting shows remain open [1] [9] [3].
Limitations and sourcing note: This briefing draws exclusively on the set of documents and reports supplied (White House releases, Reuters, BBC, AP, Foreign Policy, academic and think‑tank commentary listed above). Available sources describe the Gaza ceasefire/hostage phase and the U.S.‑led governance proposals in detail but do not present fully implemented texts of the full 20‑point plan or final legal instruments for later phases; those documents are not found in the current reporting provided [4] [1] [6].