The Evangelical Lobby: Subjective and Objective Factors Behind Trump’s Ambiguity Toward the Occupation of Gaza

On August 11, U.S. President Donald Trump declared that he did not directly support Israel’s plans to fully occupy the Gaza Strip. However, he expressed his belief that Hamas would not release the hostages unless the situation changed radically, adding: “Israel must decide the next step, and determine whether Hamas will be allowed to remain in Gaza. For me, they cannot stay there.”

This statement strongly reflects Trump’s usual ambiguity and contradictory positions, which the world has grown accustomed to since his first term. To understand this confusion—causing bewilderment both domestically and internationally—it is necessary to examine the subjective factor (his personal approach) and the objective factors that help explain Trump’s positions in general, and specifically his stance on Israel’s war in Gaza.

Trump’s Ambiguity

Since his return to the White House in January 2025, Trump has presented conflicting visions for the future of the war in Gaza. Early on, he spoke of ending the war by relocating Gaza’s residents to Egypt and Jordan and transforming the Strip into what he called a “Middle Eastern Riviera.” He even suggested that the U.S. military could administer Gaza and turn it into a prosperous economic zone, stating on February 5: “Having a power like the United States there, controlling Gaza and owning it, would be a good thing.”

Yet he quickly abandoned these remarks, shifting instead to focus on hostage-release deals between Israel and Hamas through temporary ceasefire agreements, before later expressing despair about the possibility of success.

His vague statements on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan to fully occupy Gaza created the impression that he supported it—yet he neither denied nor confirmed this, essentially delegating the decision to Israel.

What stands out in Trump’s position is his alignment with Netanyahu on the necessity of defeating Hamas and removing it from Gaza. Still, differences remain on issues such as humanitarian aid, the duration of Israel’s military presence in Gaza, the scope of Israel’s withdrawal after defeating Hamas, and who will govern Gaza during an undefined transitional period.

The Subjective Factor

Given Trump’s background as a businessman, he tends to adopt a deal-making approach rather than traditional diplomacy. This mindset shapes his way of handling crises threatening U.S. interests abroad. When he fails to secure his desired outcome, Trump often resorts to contradictory statements to confuse opponents and shield himself from blame.

Regarding the Gaza war, Trump promised—before officially taking office in January 2025—to stop the conflict. He even claimed personal credit for the January 16, 2025, prisoner exchange deal between Israel and Hamas, announced under his predecessor Joe Biden. At the time, Trump said: “This epic ceasefire agreement could not have happened without our historic victory in the November presidential election, which sent a signal to the entire world that my administration would pursue peace and negotiate agreements to protect Americans and our allies.”

However, after the March 2025 collapse of the Gaza truce, Trump’s inability to deliver on promises of new ceasefires or ending the war altogether became clear. Although he occasionally expressed frustration with both Netanyahu and Hamas, he ultimately placed the blame on Hamas for repeatedly blocking further hostage exchanges that he believed could have ended the war.

By later granting Israel the green light to continue fighting Hamas, Trump appeared more focused on avoiding personal failure in front of his domestic supporters—especially since his Gaza policy hardly differed from Biden’s, whom Trump had repeatedly accused of failing to protect U.S. interests abroad.

On a personal level, Trump also seeks to ensure that ending the Gaza war is credited solely to U.S. efforts under his leadership. This clashes with the possibility—however remote—that Netanyahu’s full occupation plan could succeed in eliminating Hamas, thereby granting Netanyahu the credit and denying Trump the political victory he craves.

The Objective Circumstances

While Trump’s personal style is key to understanding his policies, it is not sufficient on its own to explain his Gaza stance. Several objective conditions drive his ambiguity toward Netanyahu’s military plans:

1. Hamas and Iran’s influence: Trump views Hamas as a proxy for Iran’s “Axis of Resistance,” backed by Russia and China, aiming to weaken U.S. influence in the Middle East. Thus, Trump aligns with Netanyahu on disarming Hamas and its allies as a condition for ending the war. However, it is less clear whether he agrees on removing Hamas entirely from Palestinian politics. Militarily eliminating Hamas serves the U.S. strategy of curbing Chinese and Russian expansion in the region.
2. Hamas’ ceasefire demands: Hamas has demanded U.S. guarantees for a permanent ceasefire without disarming. Trump cannot accept this—both because it contradicts his strategy of defeating Iran’s proxies and because it would trigger backlash in Congress from both Republicans and Democrats.
3. Pro-Israel lobbying pressure: Trump must account for criticism and pressure from powerful pro-Israel groups, especially AIPAC.
4. Evangelical support: Trump’s ambitions—reportedly including talk of a constitutional amendment to allow another presidential run—push him to seek continued backing from Evangelical groups, which support Israel unconditionally for religious reasons.

Evangelical Support

Unlike other pro-Israel lobbies, Trump’s special attention to the Evangelical lobby (both Evangelicals and Evangelicals-influenced Protestants) plays a critical role in shaping his Gaza policy:

1. Religious-ideological dimension: Evangelicals (particularly the more hardline Evangelical Zionists) believe that Christ’s second coming is tied to the return of Jews to Palestine. Afterward, the apocalyptic “Battle of Armageddon” will occur, where Christ triumphs over evil.
2. Electoral weight: Evangelical voters supported Trump with about 81% of their votes in 2016, 76% in 2020, and 82% in 2024. They represent roughly 23% of the U.S. electorate.
3. Political leverage: Netanyahu himself has long relied on U.S. Evangelicals to influence or challenge successive U.S. presidents. Some reports even suggest Netanyahu shifted focus from the Jewish lobby in Washington to the Evangelical lobby, believing that American Jews sometimes adopt positions contrary to Israeli interests, while Evangelicals provide unconditional backing.
4. Evangelicals and settlements: On August 4, Netanyahu hosted U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson and his wife at the Shiloh settlement in the West Bank, alongside U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee (an Evangelical), several Republican members of Congress, and Israeli settler leaders. The guest list clearly showed Netanyahu’s intent to mobilize Evangelicals in support of settlement expansion—and to pressure Trump if he seeks solutions for Gaza that contradict Netanyahu’s goals.

According to Axios, the Republican lawmakers present were in Israel on a private trip organized by Heather Johnston, a self-styled guardian of Judeo-Christian heritage who advocates for Israel’s biblical and historical significance.

Conclusion

After initially expressing optimism that the Gaza war could end under his leadership—fulfilling his campaign promise to resolve global conflicts—Trump has grown more pessimistic. While some of his recent remarks suggest support for Israel’s full occupation of Gaza, others stop short of explicitly endorsing it, likely due to warnings from U.S. and Israeli military experts who oppose such an occupation over humanitarian and geopolitical concerns.

As the world has seen before, Trump’s stance could shift again. If Netanyahu’s planned occupation drags on beyond Israel’s promised five months, Trump may well move from ambiguity to an explicit call for halting the campaign—another reminder of his unpredictable political style.