How did the Trump Israel peace plan address the issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank?

1. What the plan formally proposed on settlements — a practical tilt toward Israel

The White House plan framed a future Palestinian state but treated settlements as largely Israel’s prerogative: it envisaged Palestinians controlling an estimated 70% of the West Bank while the plan permitted Israel to retain or extend control over other areas, and it appears to require only a limited, temporary freeze on new settlement construction in certain zones rather than a rollback of existing settlements ^[1]. The Trump administration’s public materials promote a vision that recognizes Israeli sovereignty over much of settlement reality, echoing earlier Trump-era positions that shifted U.S. policy away from viewing settlements as per se illegal ^{[5] [6]}.

2. Temporary freezes, not dismantling — the implementation gap

Reporting highlights that the plan’s only explicit concession regarding settlements was a four‑year freeze on establishing new settlements in certain areas — a pause, not a reversal of settlement growth or of settler presence in the West Bank ^[1]. Analysts and policy institutes warned this created a major implementation gap: without measures to reverse or limit existing settlements, the plan leaves Israel’s territorial gains intact and gives little to no guarantee that settler expansion won’t resume after the pause ^{[3] [2]}.

3. Critics: de‑facto annexation and sidelining the Palestinian Authority

Multiple commentators argue the practical effect of the plan is to regularize Israeli control over large parts of the West Bank and to sideline Palestinian authorities. RAND and others say the plan amounts to West Bank territory being “largely annexed” or at least opened to extensive Israeli control, with the Palestinian Authority marginalized in governance of Gaza and tenuous in the West Bank ^[2]. The European Council on Foreign Relations similarly warned the plan “sidesteps” the question of settlement expansion and Israel’s political rejection of a two‑state framework ^[3].

4. U.S. signaling and diplomatic consequences

The Trump administration used its diplomatic leverage to get UN and allied engagements behind the initiative, but that same leverage created controversy: Reuters noted Trump publicly vowed “he will not allow Israel annexation of the West Bank,” even as the plan’s substance appeared to enable wide Israeli control and be interpreted by many as paving the way to annexation in practice ^[4]. The Washington Post and New York Times coverage of UN engagement reflect that the plan became enshrined in U.N. action even while Israel, Hamas and other actors raised objections — underscoring a sharp international divide over settlement policy embedded in the plan ^{[7] [8]}.

5. Competing framings — “realistic solution” vs. enabling annexation

Supporters (including the White House’s own presentation) framed the document as a pragmatic pathway to statehood and stability, presenting territorial tradeoffs, connectivity projects and phased governance as realistic steps ^{[6] [1]}. Opponents and independent analysts presented it as a blueprint that normalizes settlements and effectively facilitates annexation or expanded Israeli sovereignty in the West Bank — a view articulated in RAND’s critique and by ECFR and others who emphasize the plan’s failure to mandate settlement reversal ^{[2] [3]}.

6. What the sources do not say or make unclear

Available sources do not provide a line‑by‑line legal text here fully explaining which settlements, if any, would formally change sovereign status, nor do they detail enforcement mechanisms for the temporary settlement freeze or clarify how land swaps and compensation would be implemented on the ground (not found in current reporting). Likewise, while the BBC and earlier Trump materials documented prior U.S. shifts toward recognizing settlement sovereignty in 2020, the extent to which 2025 documents legally recognize Israeli sovereignty for every settlement is described differently across outlets ^{[5] [6]}.

7. Bottom line — de jure ambiguity, de facto advantage to Israel

Across the reporting and commentary, the consistent thread is that the plan stopped short of dismantling settlements and instead preserved or institutionalized Israeli control over large West Bank areas while offering only limited, temporary constraints on new settlement activity — a formula critics say equates to de‑facto annexation or long‑term Israeli dominance in the West Bank ^{[2] [1] [3]}. Readers should note the tension between the administration’s diplomatic framing and analysts’ warnings that the plan’s practical outcome is to entrench settlement realities rather than resolve them ^{[6] [2]}.