Six Things To Know About Trump's Gaza Deal
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
U.S. President Donald Trump is seeking to announce a new ceasefire agreement that would potentially pave the way for a prolonged halt to the fighting in Gaza. Israel said it agreed to the new U.S.-brokered proposal, pushed by Middle East Special Envoy Steve Witkoff. Hamas said it is "responsibly" reviewing it.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Wednesday that discussions are continuing in hopes of reaching a ceasefire that would "bring hostages home."
Here are six key points of the new proposal, of which a copy was reviewed by Newsweek:
Duration
The ceasefire is set for 60 days, with President Trump guaranteeing Israel's commitment throughout the period and pledging to work to ensure that negotiations continue in good faith until a final agreement is reached.
Witkoff would travel to the region to finalize the agreement and lead negotiations.
Smoke rises following an Israeli bombardment in southern Gaza, as seen from a humanitarian aid distribution center operated by the U.S.-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, approved by Israel, in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, on Thursday,...
Smoke rises following an Israeli bombardment in southern Gaza, as seen from a humanitarian aid distribution center operated by the U.S.-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, approved by Israel, in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, on Thursday, May 29, 2025. More
Abdel Kareem Hana/AP Photo
Release of Hostages
Ten living Israeli hostages and eighteen deceased from the list of 58 will be returned in two phases: half (5 alive and 9 deceased) on the first day of the agreement, and the remaining half (5 alive and 9 deceased) on the seventh day.
On the 10th day, Hamas will deliver full details on all remaining hostages, including proof of life, medical status reports, or confirmation of death. Mediators will lead negotiations for releasing all remaining Israeli hostages for an agreed number of Palestinian prisoners. These talks will begin on the first day of the ceasefire.
Humanitarian Aid
The United Nations and the Red Crescent, along with other agreed channels, will distribute aid to Gaza immediately after Hamas approves the ceasefire.
Israel's Military Plan
All Israeli offensive operations in Gaza will halt at the start of the agreement. Air activity will pause for 10 hours daily, extending to 12 hours on hostage exchange days. Israeli forces will redeploy in two phases: day one in northern Gaza and the Netzarim corridor, day seven in southern Gaza—following agreed humanitarian terms and maps.
Release of Palestinian Prisoners
In exchange for 10 living Israeli hostages, Israel will release 125 prisoners with life sentences and 1,111 of those detained in Gaza after October 7, 2023. For 18 deceased hostages, Israel will return 180 bodies of those killed from Gaza. Releases will occur in two phases—half on Day One and half on Day Seven—without public ceremonies.
On Day 10, Israel will share information on Palestinian prisoners held since October 7 and Gaza martyrs in Israeli custody.
Permanent Ceasefire Negotiations
Negotiations to secure a lasting ceasefire will begin on Day One under the sponsorship of mediators—the United States, Egypt, and Qatar—covering the above-mentioned terms, security arrangements in Gaza, and plans for the post-ceasefire period.
While the proposal requires negotiations to conclude within 60 days with all remaining hostages released upon agreement, the temporary ceasefire can be extended by mutual consent if no deal is reached.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump awards Elon Musk a golden key for his DOGE work as he gives Musk an Oval Office sendoff
President Donald Trump gives tech billionaire Elon Musk a gold-colored key for his work establishing the "Department of Government Efficiency," which sought to layoff federal workers and close government agencies to achieve cost savings.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Obscure provision in House bill threatens enforcement of court rulings on Trump
Obscure provision in House bill threatens enforcement of court rulings on Trump The legislative provision echoes a memo Trump signed March 11 directing the Justice Department to request bonds in all cases where judges block his policies. Show Caption Hide Caption House passes President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' The House passed President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' It will now move onto the Senate. A provision in the House-passed package of Trump's priorities would require litigants to post a bond before a judge could enforce an order blocking a Trump policy. Judges have blocked Trump policies in 180 cases, which would all have to be reviewed for bonds if the Senate approves the House provision and Trump signs it into law. Judges have discretion to set bonds in civil cases, but legal experts say they have waived bonds in lawsuits against the government because the disputes are typically over policy rather than money. WASHINGTON – A provision in the House-passed package of President Donald Trump's priorities would erect what one judge called a trillion-dollar barrier to challenging his policies in federal court. At stake is whether judges can enforce their orders blocking Trump policies that are ruled unlawful, as they already have 180 times. The muscle behind court orders is that judges could find government officials in contempt if they disobey, threatening fines, sanctions or even jail. But the obscure House provision, which even a Republican supporter of the legislation disavowed, would prevent judges from enforcing their orders unless litigants post a bond. The bond could match the amount at stake in the lawsuit, which in one case was trillions in federal grants. More: From gym memberships to gun silencers, Trump's tax bill is full of surprises Without the threat of contempt, legal experts say the Trump administration could ignore court orders with impunity. 'What this provision would do, is say that actually, no court of the United States could enforce an injunction or restraining order using their contempt authority,' Eric Kashdan, senior legal counsel for federal advocacy at the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center, told USA TODAY. Judges, litigants and waiving bonds The legislation deals with one of the rules governing federal civil lawsuits - known as 65(c). It calls for litigants to post a bond if they win a court order such as an injunction or a temporary restraining order to block something from happening, in case the defendant ultimately wins the case. Judges have discretion about how much to set the bond. But the goal is to have the bond comparable to how much the defendant might lose while the case is litigated, such as a lost sale or blocked merger. For decades judges have waived bonds in cases against the government because the lawsuits aren't typically over money - they are about a disputed policy or the Constitution. More: How Trump's clash with the courts is brewing into an 'all-out war' In February, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan refused a request from Trump's White House Office of Management Budget to require a bond from the National Council of Nonprofits when she blocked the government from freezing all federal grants. 'The court declines,' Alikhan wrote. She noted the government was 'alleged to have unlawfully withheld trillions of dollars of previously committed funds to countless recipients.' But she said OMB would suffer no monetary injury from her injunction. Why is Trump pushing for this? The legislative provision in the budget reconciliation bill prohibits federal courts from enforcing contempt citations unless a bond was posted when an injunction or temporary restraining order was issued. It applies to court orders before, on, or after the legislation is enacted, meaning it would apply to all the orders already issued. Judges would have to weigh proposals to determine what bonds should be required in each case, according to legal experts. With discretion, a judge could impose a nominal $1 bond but the process would still take time, experts said. 'All temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and permanent injunctions where no bond had been posted no longer would be enforceable by contempt,' Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of law school at the University of California, Berkeley, told USA TODAY. The legislative provision echoes a Trump memo signed March 11 that called for the Justice Department to request bonds in all lawsuits to protect against 'potential costs and damages from a wrongly issued injunction.' 'Federal courts should hold litigants accountable for their misrepresentations and ill-granted injunctions,' the memo said. Which Trump policies have been blocked in federal courts? Trump signed 157 executive orders by May 23 – an unprecedented number four months into a presidential term – to put sweeping policies in place quickly, without waiting for legislation through Congress. The orders led to 250 lawsuits challenging Trump's dismantling of federal agencies and firing federal workers, swiftly deporting immigrants, ending diversity initiatives and imposing tariffs. The rulings in deportation cases include: U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C., found probable cause April 16 the government acted with criminal contempt for his order blocking the deportation of Venezuelans who were accused of being gang members before they had a chance to fight the designation in court. The government appealed his ruling. U.S. District Paula Xinis in Maryland has held repeated hearings asking for updates from the government on the deportation of a Salvadoran immigrant who was mistakenly deported despite an immigration court order preventing his removal. Government officials have argued they no longer have custody of the migrant to return him because he is in a Salvadoran prison. U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts ruled May 21 the government violated his order temporarily halting deportations to countries other than where migrants were from, after six migrants were flown to South Sudan. The government asked the Supreme Court on May 27 to lift Murphy's block. Trump and his allies have argued that judges are infringing on his authority to protect national security and negotiate foreign affairs with other countries. More: Trade whiplash: Appeals Court allows Trump to keep tariffs while appeal plays out 'We hope that the Supreme Court will weigh in and rein them in,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said May 29 of "rogue judges." Trump directed the administration to comply with court orders, Leavitt said, 'but we're going to fight them in court and we're going to win on the merits of these cases because we know we are acting within the president's legal and executive authority." But legal experts said requiring the deported immigrants to post a bond would likely prohibit them from having cases heard in federal courts. If courts are no longer able to enforce their orders under the legislation, experts said the government might just ignore the orders. 'If they can simply ignore the order, they don't have to appeal it. They can simply not do it," said Mark Foley, a 43-year lawyer in Milwaukee. 'It's a heads they win and tails I lose.' Fight over injunctions 'a huge separation of powers issue': Legal experts The dispute over enforcing court orders adds Congress' legislative branch to the raging debate the separation of powers between Trump's executive branch carrying out laws and judges interpreting some of his actions as unlawful. Trump has blasted judges who ruled against him but said he will obey court orders and appeal the ones he doesn't like. As Trump appeals, the Supreme Court faces an unprecedented 14 emergency requests from the administration to green-light his policies, including four that are still pending. In the legislative debate, legal experts say Trump's fellow Republicans leading Congress will decide whether to hinder courts at the president's request from enforcing orders against the executive branch. 'This is Congress saying, 'No, we don't think you can enforce these orders' and they're doing that at the strong demands of the executive branch,' Kashdan said. 'It's a huge separation of powers issue for what underlies our democracy, and all the checks and balances we're supposed to have.' 'I do not agree': GOP lawmaker who supported legislation The provision was obscure enough in the 1,100-page legislation that some who supported the bill were unaware of it. Rep. Mike Flood, R-Nebraska, told a raucous town hall May 27 that he was unaware of the provision and didn't support it. He added that he would urge the Senate to drop it. More: Who are the GOP senators balking at Trump's tax bill? 'I do not agree with that section that was added to that bill,' Flood said. 'I do believe that the federal district courts when issuing an injunction, it should have legal effect. This provision was unknown to me when I voted for the bill.' Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, told a town hall May 30 in Parkersburg that the bond provision 'will not be" in the Senate version of the bill because she expects the parliamentarian to rule that it doesn't have a financial impact on the budget, which is required for this type of legislation."I don't see any argument that could ever be made that this affects mandatory spending or revenues," Ernst said. "It will not be in the Senate bill." Senators will begin next week reviewing the legislation with a goal of sending any changes back to the House and to Trump before July 4.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Why can't Democrats take advantage of all this obvious Republican failure?
Why can't Democrats take advantage of all this obvious Republican failure? | Opinion President Donald Trump and Republicans are failing at running the country. So why are Democrats so bad at responding? Show Caption Hide Caption New poll shows Trump with low approval ratings in first 100 days Less than half of Americans approve of President Donald Trump in his first 100 days, a new NPR/PBS News/Marist poll show. I've self-identified as a Democrat since 2008, when I voted for Barack Obama in a mock election in my fifth-grade class. I've voted Democrat in every real election I've participated in since 2016. I agree with the core value of the party, that a strong centralized government that supports social safety nets leads to a better country. Despite this, I've never been registered as a Democrat – probably because I'm further left than the party. I've always said I want the freedom to vote for whoever I want, even though I have never cast a ballot for a Republican or third-party candidate. It wasn't until I moved to New York, a state with closed primary elections, that I even considered affiliating myself with the Democrats. Now, as someone with limited political power in my city's upcoming mayoral race, I've been rethinking my aversion to aligning myself with the party. But if the Democrats want me in their party, something must change. Republicans are failing on a large scale. Where are the Democrats? The Democratic Party is losing the messaging war. It's losing elections. And it's losing the American public – a recent Economist/YouGov poll found that 57% of Americans view the Democratic Party unfavorably. It's not like the Republicans are well-liked, either. That same poll found that 52% of Americans have a negative view of the GOP. The economy shrank during the first quarter due to President Donald Trump's trade war. Anything labeled "diversity, equity and inclusion" is being rooted out by the federal government. Transgender people are losing their rights. People are being deported without due process. It seems like everywhere you turn, there are unconstitutional actions taking place – yet the Democrats aren't fighting back. Opinion: This liberal influencer calls Democrats 'smug, disinterested.' He's right. It is no longer sufficient to be the party of people who aren't Trump, and it has not been for quite some time. The Democrats need to change course now, and there are several instances where they could correct the record. They need to start fighting back against what is objectively one of the worst presidencies in modern politics. Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act should be easy win for Democrats Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act – a 1,116-page policy proposal that includes tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy and cuts $1 trillion worth of social safety net programs – is barely getting attention from Democratic leaders. Party leadership should be on television, on social media and in Washington talking about how this bill would add $3.8 trillion to the national debt while harming people who rely on federal programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Democrats should be stoking divisions in the Republican Party to get moderate Republicans to vote against the bill. Opinion: Trump's administration is off the rails because it's unqualified to do the job Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, is doing this already, but on a very small scale. On May 29, the senator railed against the megabill in New York City, saying the budget proposal was 'big in bad ways.' Why isn't Schumer carrying this message across the country, particularly to states where Trump won? Why isn't he sharing these thoughts on Fox News? House Republicans are publicly and gleefully trying to rip insurance coverage and Medicaid help from the poorest Americans while also helping the richest. How are Democrats losing to that? Democrats have a relatability problem Because younger voters are more likely to align with the Democratic Party, you would think its leaders would do more to engage those voters and reflect this reality within the party. Instead, Democrats seem to largely operate on seniority. It's why Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, is not running to be the ranking member on the House Oversight Committee after the death of Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Virginia, in May. Ocasio-Cortez ran against Connolly, only to lose the position because it was meant to go to a more senior member. In the end, this only hurts Democrats. Sure, experience is important, but so is energy. There are several candidates who could replace Connolly on the committee. If Democrats were ready to win, they'd go with Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett, an outspoken progressive who knows how to use social media and traditional news outlets to her advantage. If the party were to elevate Crockett to a leadership role, it would show voters like me that they're serious about bringing younger, newer leaders into the fold. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. The Democrats also made an error in going after Democratic National Committee Vice Chair David Hogg, a Gen Z activist who wants the party to have competitive primary elections – something that would require sitting legislators to actually go out and talk to their constituents. Instead of accepting this as a great idea, and one that would give the party a jolt of energy, the DNC has tried to oust Hogg from his position over a procedural error. It's the kind of move that shows the party isn't serious about committing to younger leaders, even though young people play a huge role in getting Democrats elected. Spending money to solve simple problems It appears that the Democrats' biggest issue is messaging. They are supposedly doing something to combat this – but even that is causing controversy. On May 25, The New York Times reported that the Democratic Party had created a $20 million strategic plan to learn how to speak with American men, a group from whom they lost support in the 2024 presidential election. They were immediately – and rightfully – lambasted for this strategy. Research is a necessary tool for political campaigns, and I understand the idea behind the $20 million plan. But it also feels like this is something they could achieve by simply doing what the Trump campaign did: Pay attention to what young men like and go from there. It just seems like the Democratic Party would rather sit around and ask themselves what went wrong instead of changing things ahead of 2026 elections. I want the Democratic Party to be better. I'm just not sure that's what party leaders want. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno
