Foreign Policy Brief #215 | Inijah Quadri | August 15, 2025
Under the Trump administration, U.S. policy has shifted in tone, language, and substance: Washington has openly embraced Israeli priorities while sidelining Palestinian rights and claims. What had long been presented as a balancing act—security guarantees for Israel paired with a rhetorical commitment to Palestinian statehood—has become a policy that favors one side almost exclusively.
For decades, Washington has treated Israel’s security as a core U.S. interest while promising a path to Palestinian self-determination. That approach rests on a stream of military aid set in a ten-year memorandum, emergency wartime funds and frequent weapons sales, and occasional political dialogue about a cease-fire and a two-state solution. After the war expanded out of Gaza (into Lebanon, Yemen and the West Bank)in late 2023, the United States briefly slowed a shipment of heavy bombs on humanitarian grounds but kept the larger pipeline open and later green-lit additional major packages. U.S. support also includes Israel’s layered air defenses: Congress provided roughly $4 billion in April 2024 to replenish Iron Dome and David’s Sling.
Diplomatically, the United States has leaned on its veto at the United Nations to block texts that demand an immediate, unconditional ceasefire, arguing that any deal must also address hostages and Hamas. A Qatar- and Egypt-brokered truce early this year did lead to hostage–prisoner exchanges, but it collapsed within weeks and the fighting resumed. At the Security Council, any one of the five permanent members can block a “substantive” resolution with a single negative vote; as of June 4, 2025, Washington has used that veto on Israel/Palestine matters roughly 50 times, including ceasefire texts on December 8, 2023; February 20 and November 20, 2024; and June 4, 2025, and a resolution on April 18, 2024 that would have advanced full U.N. membership for the State of Palestine. Since May–June 2024, several European states have recognized Palestine as a state—Spain, Ireland, and Norway on May 28, 2024, and Slovenia on June 4, 2024—while France has announced it will recognize Palestine in September 2025 and the United Kingdom has said it will move to recognize at the September 2025 U.N. General Assembly unless Israel meets conditions (cease-fire, more aid access, no annexation, and a renewed peace process); recognition increases diplomatic standing and typically upgrades missions to embassies but does not confer U.N. membership, which the U.S. vetoed on April 18, 2024.
Washington has also repeatedly convened or brokered negotiations—Madrid/Oslo (1991–1993), Camp David and Taba (2000–2001), Annapolis (2007–2008), and the Kerry talks (2013–2014); under Trump it unveiled the 2020 “Peace to Prosperity” plan and, since October 2023, has engaged in intensive shuttle diplomacy alongside Qatar and Egypt. Biden’s relationship with Netanyahu featured public friction (criticism of settlement expansion, a May 2024 pause on 2,000-lb bombs, and months without a White House invitation during Israel’s 2023 judicial overhaul), whereas Trump aligned closely with Netanyahu’s agenda (embassy move to Jerusalem, recognition of Israeli sovereignty on the Golan, reversal of the settlements legal stance) and in 2025 appointed an ambassador who shares Israel’s far-right rhetoric.
The 2018 relocation of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem effectively recognized Israel’s claim to the city’s undivided capital, prompted closure of the stand-alone U.S. Consulate that handled Palestinian affairs, and led a small set of countries (e.g., Guatemala, Honduras, Kosovo, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay) to follow suit—moves Palestinians viewed as prejudging a core final-status issue. The current U.S. Ambassador to Israel is Mike Huckabee, a conservative evangelical and longtime supporter of West Bank settlement expansion; in June 2025 he stated that the United States is no longer pursuing an independent Palestinian state, frequently referring to the West Bank as “Judea and Samaria.”
Beyond Gaza, U.S. policy has tried to curb West Bank violence in fits and starts. The previous administration said settlement expansion conflicts with international law and created a sanctions tool against violent settlers; the current administration scrapped both the tool and the designations. It also revoked a White House memo that had added extra humanitarian-law checks to arms transfers. In parallel, Congress froze U.S. government funding to the U.N. agency that serves Palestinian refugees and has not restored it, forcing aid to move through narrower channels. Trump officials have also announced U.S.–Israel-run food distribution centers in Gaza and backed a “Gaza Humanitarian Foundation” to operate limited aid hubs, but with UNRWA still frozen, these ad-hoc channels have delivered uneven coverage and protection for aid workers.
On August 22, 2025, U.N.-backed experts formally confirmed famine in Gaza City, projecting over 640,000 people at IPC Phase 5 (Catastrophe) by late September absent major access improvements; U.N. agencies attribute the crisis to man-made access constraints and have called for unhindered humanitarian access. Despite Israeli announcements easing some restrictions, aid groups reported as recently as August 20, 2025 that key shelter materials still were not being allowed in, underscoring persistent access barriers.
Analysis
US policy towards Israel has not shifted enough toward rights, law, and accountability. Security aid and weapon sales continue without binding, enforceable conditions. A brief pause on the largest bombs did not become a policy of consistent leverage tied to civilian protection, access for aid, and an end to collective punishment. Trump’s repeal of the humanitarian-law memoweakened oversight at the very moment when it was most needed. The same period saw the administration lift sanctions on violent settlers and remove designees, even as U.N. monitors recorded the highest monthly rate of settler attacks injuring Palestinians in at least two decades and repeated community displacements across the West Bank.
At the United Nations, the veto shield narrows nonviolent options and signals to Israeli leaders that there is little cost for rejecting ceasefire language supported by nearly every other member. That posture also sidelines Palestinian rights claims in global forums and delays pressure for a durable political settlement. It also blocked momentum on Palestinian membership, which—paired with clear commitments on security—could have anchored a political horizon instead of another cycle of indefinite “temporary” arrangements. On April 18, 2024, the U.S. vetoed a Security Council resolution recommending Palestine’s full U.N. membership; as of June 4, 2025, the U.S. also vetoed an immediate, unconditional, and permanent Gaza cease-fire backed by 14 of 15 Council members.
On the West Bank, Trump’s ending of the settler-violence sanctions and removing several names from the Treasury list stripped away one of the only U.S. tools aimed at curbing daily abuses under occupation. It tells perpetrators and the officials who enable them that Washington’s priority is political alignment, not equal protection under the law. Reversing the sanctions also undercuts earlier statements that settlement expansion violates international law.
Humanitarian policy remains piecemeal. With U.N. refugee-agency funding cut off by statute and not restored, needs of people affected by the conflicts in the region have only grown. A rights-first frame would restore and expand funding and pair it with protection for aid workers and civilians across Gaza, the West Bank, and the entire region. That restoration should include not only UNRWA but also robust, unimpeded operating access for neutral aid actors—including U.S. NGOs—so they can move food, fuel, and medical supplies at scale. U.S. funding to UNRWA was suspended in 2024 and remains frozen under U.S. law and subsequent executive action in 2025.
Policies toward a two-state outcome have diverged sharply: Biden reaffirmed two states and re-stated that settlements are “inconsistent with international law,” while Trump’s 2020 plan supported a demilitarized, truncated Palestinian state under extensive Israeli security control. In 2025, his envoy has said Washington is no longer pursuing an independent Palestinian state at all. Meanwhile, Israel’s governing coalition continues to depend on far-right parties led by Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, whose positions have shaped war policy; reporting in July–August 2025 highlighted their pressure for maximalist military objectives, and in August the court scheduled intensified testimony in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s long-running bribery, fraud, and breach-of-trust trial (with hearings ordered three times per week from November 2025).
Accountability is also seen to be being pulled in the opposite direction. Trump sanctioned officials at the International Criminal Court over their Israel-related work. A federal judge has recently blocked enforcement of these sanctions, but Trump’s action spotlights a double standard: Washington urges rule-of-law abroad while punishing those who try to apply it to an ally. A consistent, universal approach would support independent investigations, not suppress them. Legally, the “genocide” question is before the International Court of Justice in South Africa v. Israel: the Court has not ruled on the merits but has three times (Jan. 26, Mar. 28, and May 24, 2024) ordered provisional measures—including to prevent acts under the Genocide Convention, enable humanitarian aid, and, on May 24, to halt Israel’s offensive in Rafah—citing the risk to protected rights; U.N. experts have warned of a risk of genocide. Jimmy Carter’s major public critique focused on “apartheid” (2006), not on being the first to accuse genocide.
Cease-fire status as at now: Hamas has said it accepted a mediator-drafted proposal for a 60-day truce with phased hostage-prisoner exchanges and partial Israeli pullouts; Israel has not agreed, with Prime Minister Netanyahu saying talks would resume only “on terms acceptable to Israel” while authorizing operations to seize Gaza City.
The way forward is not mysterious. Make every weapons transfer contingent on verifiable compliance with humanitarian law and real-time access for aid. End the automatic U.N. veto and back an immediate, durable ceasefire tied to equal rights and freedom of movement for Palestinians. Restore UNRWA funding and support Palestinian statehood alongside security for Israelis and Palestinians alike. At the same time, remove administrative barriers so vetted U.S. and international NGOs can scale food, water, health, and shelter operations across Gaza and the West Bank without political interference. Without those shifts, U.S. policy continues to allow the conflict to continue rather than end it, and the human cost mounts.
Taken together, the Trump administration’s record shows a decisive break from prior U.S. rhetoric of “balance.” By embracing Israeli government positions, reversing even modest checks on settlements and arms oversight, and declaring the two-state framework defunct, Washington has signaled that Palestinian rights are not a priority. This shift in tone, policy, and language marks a clear departure from past administrations—and has entrenched rather than resolved the conflict.
Engagement Resources
- OCHA oPt (https://www.ochaopt.org/): The U.N.’s humanitarian coordination hub for Gaza and the West Bank, with situation reports, access analysis, and datasets.
- UNRWA (https://www.unrwa.org/): The U.N. agency delivering education, health care, and relief for Palestine refugees across the region, including Gaza and the West Bank.
- OHCHR — State of Palestine (https://www.ohchr.org/en/countries/palestine): The U.N. human rights office monitoring and reporting on violations in the occupied Palestinian territory.
- Congressional Research Service (https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47828): Nonpartisan U.S. briefing on the conflict, U.S. policy, and options for Congress.
- ACRI (https://www.english.acri.org.il): The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, advancing civil and human rights for all under Israeli control.