President Trump announced Thursday that his Board of Peace had reached an agreement with Hamas to disarm and transfer civilian and security control of Gaza to a new Palestinian technocratic government.
Why it matters: If implemented, the agreement would represent a dramatic breakthrough in Trump's 20-point Gaza peace plan and clear the way for reconstruction of the devastated enclave.
But the deal requires Hamas and Israel to complete a complicated series of reciprocal and independently verified steps over roughly seven to eight months.
Israeli officials remain deeply skeptical that Hamas will surrender its weapons, while comments from a senior Hamas official suggest the sequencing of disarmament and Israel's withdrawal could still be contested.
What they're saying: "Today, the Board of Peace reached a HISTORIC agreement for the COMPLETE DISARMAMENT of Hamas and all other armed groups in Gaza," Trump wrote Thursday evening on Truth Social.
"This is a monumental step toward lasting PEACE and SECURITY," he added.
State of play: Two U.S. officials said Hamas had agreed to the terms of the deal after months of what one senior administration official described as "very delicate" negotiations with mediators Qatar, Turkey and Egypt.
Implementation is expected to begin in the coming weeks, the senior U.S. official said.
A Board of Peace official said this is the first time Hamas and the other Palestinian factions in Gaza have agreed to demilitarize the enclave and transfer responsibility for security and civilian services to a technocratic government.
Under the agreement, Hamas would relinquish any role in governing Gaza. The new National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) would serve as an alternative to Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.
"It will work for the people of Gaza," the senior U.S. official said.
Reality check: Hamas official Ghazi Hamad confirmed to Al Jazeera that "difficult" negotiations had produced an agreement, but his description raised immediate questions about its implementation.
"We will not take any steps regarding disarmament before Israel withdraws from the Gaza Strip," Hamad said. He added that the NCAG would carry out disarmament without Israeli involvement.
That appears to differ from Trump's description of a "carefully structured" and phased process in which Israeli forces withdraw as disarmament is completed.
U.S. and Board of Peace officials said implementation would proceed through reciprocal, independently verified steps, while acknowledging that the timetable for Israel's withdrawal is still being finalized.
The big picture: Large parts of Gaza were destroyed during the war, and most of its 2 million residents continue to live in tents or makeshift shelters.
Food and other aid are entering Gaza in large quantities, but the humanitarian situation remains dire.
The Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry says nearly 1,200 Palestinians have been killed since the Oct. 10, 2025, ceasefire. Some were Hamas militants, while many others were civilians, including children.
Zoom in: The agreement is based on the principle that Gaza will have one government, one legal system and one legitimate security authority. The demilitarization process is expected to take between 200 and 250 days and to proceed through one part of Gaza at a time.
Hamas' civilian police would first transfer their weapons to a new Palestinian police force under the technocratic government.
Hamas' heavy weapons would then be decommissioned and placed in secure storage, while its tunnels and weapons factories would be dismantled.
Small arms would be collected in accordance with Palestinian law.
All other militias in Gaza, including anti-Hamas factions armed by Israel during the war, would also be required to surrender their weapons.
The NCAG would assume authority over each area only after a monitoring mechanism verified that the relevant commitments had been fulfilled.
At the end of the process, the technocratic government and its police force would have a monopoly on weapons in Gaza, the Board of Peace official said.
How it works: Under the agreement, an international stabilization force would help train the new Palestinian police, assist with weapons collection, and deploy between Palestinian-controlled areas and Israeli forces.
A Board of Peace official said the agreement was designed around "zero trust" because Hamas and Israel each made clear from the outset that they did not trust the other side.
The process would not advance from one stage to the next until monitors verified that both sides had met their obligations.
The goal is to avoid a situation in which the technocratic government controls Gaza during the day while armed factions retain power at night, the official said.
The other side: Israel's withdrawal would proceed gradually under a timetable that is still being finalized.
Trump said Israeli forces would withdraw as disarmament was completed and the international force and new Palestinian police assumed responsibility for security.
Israel would also halt military operations and targeted killings in Gaza, except in cases involving an imminent threat.
"All military activity in Gaza will have to cease — both from Israel and Hamas," the Board of Peace official said.
Inside the room: The senior U.S. official said the Trump administration coordinated closely with Israel throughout the negotiations.
The administration also intends to ensure Israel fulfills its commitments under the agreement, despite Israel's skepticism that Hamas will disarm.
"We are not asking Israel for anything other than to implement their commitments under the 20-point plan," the official said.
"If they do not do that, President Trump will be very disappointed. I do not think the Israelis would want to escalate things with us right now."
Behind the scenes: Egypt, Qatar and Turkey exerted intense pressure on Hamas to accept the agreement, according to two sources familiar with the negotiations.
A key figure was Egyptian intelligence chief Hassan Rashad, who hosted the talks and has a close relationship with Hamas political leader Khalil al-Hayya, U.S. officials and others familiar with the negotiations said.
The intrigue: During a recent visit to Iran for the funeral of former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, a Hamas delegation met with senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps officials, according to a source with knowledge of the meeting.
The IRGC officials urged Hamas not to rush into signing the agreement and to play for time, the source said.
A senior U.S. official also claimed Iran tried to convince Hamas not to sign the deal, but said the group chose not to listen.
Editor's note: This story has been updated with additional details throughout.
Facts Only
* President Trump announced an agreement with Hamas for disarmament and transfer of civilian/security control in Gaza.
* The agreement requires reciprocal, independently verified steps over approximately seven to eight months between Hamas and Israel.
* Hamas agreed to the complete disarmament of itself and all armed groups in Gaza.
* A new National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) would serve as an alternative governing body to Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.
* The agreement is based on a principle of one government, one legal system, and one security authority for Gaza.
* Hamas' civilian police would transfer weapons to a new Palestinian police force under the technocratic government.
* Heavy weapons would be decommissioned and placed in secure storage; tunnels and factories would be dismantled.
* Small arms would be collected according to Palestinian law.
* All other militias, including those armed by Israel, would surrender weapons.
* Implementation is expected to proceed through reciprocal steps while the timetable for Israeli withdrawal is being finalized.
* The process is expected to take between 200 and 250 days.
Executive Summary
A Board of Peace reached an agreement with Hamas to disarm the group and transfer civilian and security control of Gaza to a new Palestinian technocratic government. This agreement necessitates a complicated sequence of reciprocal and independently verified steps spanning approximately seven to eight months involving both Hamas and Israel. While President Trump announced this deal, Israeli officials remain skeptical about Hamas's commitment to disarmament, and senior Hamas officials indicated that the sequencing of disarmament relative to Israel's withdrawal could be contested.
The proposed structure involves the relinquishing of Hamas's governing role; a new National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) would serve as an alternative to both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. The implementation plan details a phased demilitarization process expected to take 200 to 250 days, proceeding one part of Gaza at a time. Under this framework, Hamas's civilian police would transfer weapons to a new Palestinian force, heavy weapons would be decommissioned, and militias would surrender arms. An international stabilization force is slated to assist in training the new police and supervising weapons collection.
The humanitarian situation in Gaza remains dire, with reports of significant casualties since the ceasefire. The framework aims to establish a single government, legal system, and security authority for Gaza, based on a "zero trust" principle, requiring independent verification at each stage to prevent armed factions from retaining power during the transition.
Full Take
The narrative presents a framework built on contingent trust, where political goals—peace, security, and reconstruction—are explicitly deferred until verifiable compliance with disarmament steps is achieved by all parties. The tension arises from the gap between the stated goal of lasting peace and the practical negotiation over sequencing: specifically, the relationship between Hamas's disarmament and Israel's withdrawal timeline. This points to a structural conflict where sovereignty and security claims are intertwined, requiring externally verified mechanisms to bridge the "zero trust" divide.
The differing accounts regarding implementation—Trump’s description of a "carefully structured" process versus Hamas official Ghazi Hamad’s statement emphasizing disarmament preceding Israeli withdrawal—highlight a fundamental divergence in perceived agency within the negotiation. This suggests that the success of the agreement is less about the final terms and more about establishing enforceable, mutually monitored procedural obligations. The reliance on external monitoring forces to prevent power vacuums between factions implies that internal political will alone is insufficient for stability; systemic accountability must be imposed externally.
The underlying pattern involves leveraging interdependence as a tool for compliance rather than immediate capitulation. When negotiations involve actors with fundamentally opposed security objectives, the mechanism of agreement itself becomes a strategic object. The historical context regarding external pressures exerted by intermediaries (Qatar, Turkey, Egypt) and regional powers (Iran) suggests that the agreement's viability is contingent not just on the stated text, but on the complex interplay of geopolitical incentives acting upon the negotiating parties. Future analysis must focus on whether these procedural guarantees translate into tangible security realities or remain rhetorical structures designed for short-term political leverage.
Bridge Questions: If the independent monitoring mechanism fails to verify commitments accurately, what immediate crisis point would cause a breakdown in the agreement? How can external verification be established without compromising the operational autonomy of the newly formed technocratic government? What historical precedent exists for success when security concessions are predicated on mutually distrustful entities achieving perfect sequential compliance?
Sentinel — Human
The text reads like a synthesized report covering complex geopolitical claims, featuring multiple perspectives and attributed quotes, suggesting human journalistic compilation rather than pure AI generation.