Trump son in low building resorts in Gaza
Executive summary
The short answer: media reporting and official materials show Jared Kushner — Donald Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser — has publicly promoted and helped craft visions to redevelop Gaza’s waterfront with luxury hotels and resorts, and he sits on Trump’s “Board of Peace” charged with overseeing Gaza reconstruction; those proposals range from high-rise seaside developments to grandiose “Riviera” plans and have provoked sharp criticism and questions about funding, legality and motives [1] [2] [3].
1. Kushner’s brochure-style pitch for Gaza waterfront development
Jared Kushner unveiled glossy mock-ups and a PowerPoint-style vision for Gaza that explicitly included high-rises, seaside resorts and zones marketed to private investors — an approach presented at Davos and elsewhere as part of the Trump administration’s reconstruction program [4] [5] [2]. Media accounts characterize the imagery as a real-estate brochure and report Kushner showing maps that divided Gaza into investment “zones,” with concrete visuals of luxury waterfront projects and entirely new cities [6] [5].
2. Trump’s rhetoric, Kushner’s models and the “Riviera” label
President Trump has repeatedly described Gaza as a potential “Riviera of the Middle East” and said the U.S. would “own it” and develop it — language that echoes Kushner’s earlier public comments about Gaza’s valuable waterfront potential and links such development plans directly to the president’s broader takeover and reconstruction rhetoric [3] [1] [7]. Those turns of phrase have helped frame the policy debate as much about property and branding as about humanitarian recovery [8].
3. Formal roles: Board of Peace and the technocratic pitch
The White House has institutionalized reconstruction plans by creating a “Board of Peace” and a National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG), with Kushner named among executive figures tasked with investment attraction and reconstruction oversight, a structure the administration says will manage governance capacity-building and capital mobilization [9] [2] [10]. Supporters present this as a technocratic route to demilitarization and rebuilding; critics see it as concentrating power in a politicized council chaired by Trump and populated by real-estate and finance allies [2] [10].
4. Funding, feasibility and regional pushback
Reporting shows substantial uncertainty over where tens of billions in financing would come from: Gulf states and other potential investors have publicly balked at funding large-scale redevelopment while questions over long-term stability and Palestinian statehood remain, and analysts tell Reuters such projects generally require major, sustained investment and security guarantees that are not yet in place [3] [1]. Independent coverage warns that promises of $25 billion or larger sums have been floated in some presentations and commentary, but that concrete pledges and credible financing plans remain opaque [6] [11].
5. Legal, ethical and political backlash
Critics across the region and internationally interpret talk of clearing Gaza and redeveloping it without its current Palestinian inhabitants as tantamount to ethnic cleansing or erasure, and legal experts and Palestinian voices have reacted with shock and condemnation, arguing redevelopment on ruins and displacement would raise severe humanitarian and legal questions [3] [12]. Advocates of the plan argue such transformation could create jobs and restore services, but those claims are contested and hinge on demilitarization and political arrangements that Hamas and others have rejected [1] [5].
6. Business ties, conflicts of interest and skeptical readings
Multiple outlets note that Kushner’s private-equity activities and the Trump family’s longstanding Middle East business interests color perceptions of the plan; reporting highlights prior investment ties and deals in the region that lead some analysts and critics to read profit motives and crony-capitalist opportunity in the reconstruction agenda [7] [13]. At the same time, White House documents frame board members’ roles as technical and financial, leaving an information gap about safeguards against conflicts of interest and about how displaced residents’ rights would be protected [9] [5].