The Trump administration says it has a plan for Gaza’s future, but allies see the same names that failed before

The Trump administration is preparing to unveil a new governance structure for Gaza, potentially as soon as Wednesday, as it moves into the next phase of the current ceasefire agreement. According to the Financial Times, the proposal is intended to shape Gaza’s post-war administration during what is defined as “Phase Two” of the truce.

Washington is pressing ahead despite skepticism from key allies and a lack of committed international funding. The plan calls for Palestinian technocrats to enter Gaza and assume responsibility for civil affairs, replacing Hamas’s role in governance. On paper, the framework is meant to stabilize daily life and lay the groundwork for reconstruction.

I find it difficult to view this as a meaningful turning point for Palestinians without confronting what has repeatedly happened after past agreements. Even when aid distribution has shifted to alternative structures, Palestinians have continued to be killed and subjected to the same conditions. Without clear, enforceable constraints on Israeli military action, changing administrators or committees does little to alter outcomes on the ground.

The same officials are resurfacing in a new framework

The administration is expected to appoint Nickolay Mladenov, a former UN envoy, as a high representative for Gaza, overseeing a 14-member Palestinian technocratic committee. While his reputation is relatively strong, the broader leadership structure raises more serious concerns.

The US also plans to announce an executive committee for a larger international board that includes US envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and the architect of the administration’s Gaza policy. This comes as the administration navigates a fragile domestic political environment, where House Republicans still hold the majority, but it’s shrinking to a dangerous breaking point.

Concerns about credibility are difficult to ignore. Several of the officials now tasked with implementing the ceasefire were previously involved in the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a private aid initiative that collapsed last year. That effort was meant to weaken Hamas’s governance by rerouting aid distribution, yet it ended in chaos. Distribution hubs became flashpoints, and hundreds of Palestinians were reportedly killed along access routes amid Israeli military operations. While Israeli forces denied deliberately targeting civilians and disputed casualty figures, the foundation shuttered in November after only a few months of operation.

To me, this continuity undermines the entire project. It suggests not only bias in how responsibility is assigned, but a refusal to acknowledge that these approaches have already failed Palestinians once. The problem is not a lack of ambition; it is the absence of accountability.

That same disconnect is visible in “Project Sunrise,” a 32-page, $112 billion proposal to remake Gaza into a high-tech, AI-driven enclave over a decade. Given current conditions, I find the vision offensive rather than aspirational, particularly at a time when Gen Z and Millennials are rejecting the two-party system, and the fallout could reshape elections.

Short-term goals like reopening the Rafah crossing, expanding medical access, and easing import restrictions are achievable and necessary. Long-term stability, however, remains elusive as Israeli forces continue to occupy large portions of the enclave and donor states hesitate to provide troops or funding. Only $1 billion has reportedly been raised, far short of the tens of billions experts say are required.

Despite this, the team behind the plan insists it is realistic, pointing to the initial ceasefire and hostage releases as evidence of effectiveness. I remain unconvinced. Jared Kushner’s track record in the region offers little reason to believe that recycled leadership and grand visions will produce different results this time. The plan feels deeply flawed, yet at this point it also feels unavoidable. With no alternative framework gaining traction, this may be what moves forward by default, regardless of whether it meaningfully improves life for Palestinians.