The Trump administration’s decision to engage directly with Hamas represents a notable departure from longstanding US policy. The United States has historically avoided public negotiations with groups it has classified as terrorist organizations. On March 5, 2025, reports surfaced that the Trump administration had launched direct talks with Hamas, a Palestinian group designated as a terrorist organization by the United States since 1997.
While Washington has occasionally conducted covert negotiations with designated terrorist organizations in the past, this public acknowledgment of direct contact with Hamas — facilitated through meetings in Doha, Qatar — represents a bold shift under President Donald Trump’s second term. This development has provoked strong reactions from Israel, raised questions about the innovative nature of US foreign policy and potentially reshaped the framework for achieving a lasting settlement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
According to Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs Adam Boehler, US negotiators had “very productive talks,” and Hamas “provided some very interesting views.” Boehler stated that, in addition to discussing the release of hostages, the parties also “discussed what the end [of the war] might look like.” He noted that Hamas “leaned toward a long-term truce… in which they would be disarmed, would not be part of political governance, and would be placed in a position where they could no longer threaten Israel.” He added, “These kinds of dialogues are very important to the president because, as he constantly says, he doesn’t want war.” Boehler continued, “War is a last resort. He wants a peaceful world.”
According to Reuters, meetings between Hamas leaders and Boehler centered on the release of an American-Israeli dual national, Edan Alexander, held by Hamas in Gaza. Taher al-Nunu, a political adviser to the leader of the Palestinian group, confirmed the unprecedented direct talks with Washington, which took place in the Qatari capital over the past week. “Several meetings have already taken place in Doha, focusing on the release of one of the dual-national prisoners. We have engaged positively and flexibly in a manner that serves the interests of the Palestinian people,” Nunu stated. More broadly, direct US-Hamas talks are centered on a US-backed proposal that would involve Hamas releasing 10 living hostages, including Alexander, in exchange for a 60-day extension of the ceasefire. This dual-purpose approach underscores a willingness to bypass traditional diplomatic constraints, a hallmark of Trump’s unconventional foreign policy.
The discussions between Boehler and Hamas mark a significant departure from Washington’s longstanding policy of refusing to negotiate with groups it designates as terrorist organizations. Nevertheless, after Israel expressed concerns, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that this direct channel of communication was a one-time attempt to secure the release of some hostages, which ultimately failed. “That doesn’t mean he was wrong to try,” Rubio said of Boehler’s talks with Hamas. “But our primary focus remains on the process taking place in Qatar.”
Since its designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the United States in 1997, Hamas has been largely excluded from direct US diplomatic efforts in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Historically, Washington has engaged with the Palestinian Authority (PA) as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people while imposing strict preconditions on Hamas, including the recognition of Israel, renouncing violence and accepting past agreements. However, the Trump administration’s direct contact with Hamas — whether as part of a hostage release strategy, ceasefire negotiations or broader strategic calculations — signals a pragmatic departure from previous policy.
The Israeli government’s response to this development has been one of concern and, in some quarters, outright opposition. Israeli leaders have long opposed any form of engagement with Hamas, arguing that it legitimizes a group committed to Israel’s destruction. Netanyahu’s administration, which maintains a close relationship with the White House, has voiced concerns over the implications of such talks. These concerns center on the potential for increased international recognition of Hamas at the expense of Israel’s security interests, as well as the risk of publicly exposing divergences between Israel and the Trump administration. Far-right members of Netanyahu’s coalition, already critical of the ceasefire that saw 33 Israeli hostages exchanged for 2,000 Palestinian prisoners, have seized on the US-Hamas talks as evidence of wavering US support. Moreover, Israeli officials were taken aback by the US hostage envoy’s remark that the United States is “not an agent of Israel.”
The Israeli government’s unease is compounded by Trump’s simultaneous threats against Hamas. On March 6, 2025, the president issued a stark warning via Truth Social, stating, “Not a single Hamas member will be safe if you don’t do as I say,” and suggesting dire consequences for Gaza’s civilians if hostages are not released. This novel form of diplomacy and intimidation has left Israeli leaders uncertain about Washington’s ultimate intentions, with some interpreting it as a green light for unrestrained military action should talks fail. On March 14 , 2025, Hamas said it had agreed to release US-Israeli hostage Edan Alexander and the bodies of four slain dual nationals.
The US-Hamas engagement could have far-reaching consequences for the broader Middle East peace process and regional diplomacy. While the first Trump administration was widely regarded as one of the most pro-Israel in US history — evidenced by its recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the Abraham Accords — its present willingness to communicate directly with Hamas could create friction with Israeli policymakers, particularly those on the right. Moreover, Hamas has historically received significant support from Iran, though its relationship with Tehran has fluctuated over time. If US-Hamas talks lead to a reduced Iranian role in Gaza, this could alter the broader balance of power among regional actors, including Hezbollah in Lebanon. Eventually, the decision to engage with Hamas could set a precedent for US negotiations with other non-state actors, including Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, or even the Taliban, despite their terrorist designations. This could reshape US diplomatic approaches in conflict zones worldwide.
The Trump administration’s direct engagement with Hamas marks a pragmatic shift aimed at achieving concrete outcomes. This departure from tradition seeks to address the hostage crisis and potentially end a prolonged conflict. While pragmatists may argue that diplomacy with adversaries is necessary for conflict resolution, US and Israeli hawks warn that such engagement risks legitimizing militant groups and undermining traditional allies. Israeli concerns, regional power dynamics and the precedent this sets for US foreign policy will shape the long-term impact of this decision. Whether this move facilitates a breakthrough or further complicates the path to peace remains to be seen. What is certain is that Trump’s willingness to negotiate directly with Hamas might pressure Israel to soften its stance, especially if paired with his threats of escalation, though Netanyahu’s domestic political constraints make concessions unlikely.
The recent military escalation in Gaza highlights that the Trump administration’s new diplomatic strategy relies on establishing direct lines of communication with its adversaries while simultaneously leveraging the threat and use of force. On March 18, 2025, Israel shattered the Gaza ceasefire, with IDF strikes killing more than 400 Palestinians. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that the operation was conducted to “achieve war objectives,” while Hamas condemned the strikes as a “blatant violation of humanitarian conventions.”
Israel’s renewed waves of military operations risk becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, undermining the potential for direct talks to yield diplomatic results. In other words, the pursuit of a military solution to a political problem may become the dominant approach for both Israel and the United States in the coming weeks, further diminishing prospects for a negotiated resolution to the conflict.
