Gaza Ceasefire Deal Attribution: Who Gets the Credit?

Biden's Claim: "Elements of This Deal Were What I Laid Out in May"

President Biden stated publicly that "elements of this deal were what I laid out in detail this past May" and that negotiators used the "exact framework" of his earlier proposal. [1]

On May 31, 2024, Biden publicly outlined a three-phase ceasefire framework that he attributed to Israel. The Associated Press reported at the time that the proposal included: [14]

• Phase 1: 6-week ceasefire, partial hostage release, Israeli withdrawal from populated areas
• Phase 2: Permanent cessation of hostilities, release of remaining hostages
• Phase 3: Major reconstruction plan, return of remains

According to Snopes fact-checkers, the January 2025 deal "does track closely with the structure Biden outlined" and uses a similar phased approach. [2]

However, the claim of an "exact framework" overstates the similarity. The New York Times identified several key differences between the May 2024 proposal and the final January 2025 agreement: [15]

• Speed of captive swaps: January 2025 deal accelerated the timeline for hostage exchanges
• Hamas governance role: January deal included more specific provisions on post-conflict governance
• Israel withdrawal guidance: More detailed withdrawal timelines in final agreement
• Humanitarian aid directive: Enhanced provisions for aid delivery

The fundamental architecture remained similar, supporting Biden's claim of framework continuity. But characterizing it as "exact" is an overstatement.

Trump's Claim: "Could Have Only Happened as a Result of Our Historic Victory"

President-elect Trump declared on Truth Social that "This EPIC ceasefire agreement could have only happened as a result of our Historic Victory in November." [3]

The evidence supports that Trump's team contributed meaningfully to breaking the impasse:

Steve Witkoff's Role: Trump sent his incoming Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff to Qatar to participate in final negotiations. Fox News reported that Witkoff worked alongside Biden administration officials in the final push. [5]

The Washington Post reported that Trump officials communicated directly with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, conveying that the incoming administration expected a deal before inauguration. [16]

A senior diplomat involved in the negotiations told NBC News: "This is the first time there has been real pressure on the Israeli side." [4]

However, the claim that the deal "could have only happened" due to Trump's victory dismisses eight months of diplomatic groundwork. The framework, international coalition support, and negotiating relationships were established during the Biden administration's sustained engagement.

What Foreign Policy Experts Say

Multiple foreign policy analysts provided nuanced assessments that reject the binary framing of "who deserves credit."

Jonathan Panikoff, former U.S. intelligence official and director of the Atlantic Council's Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative, stated that Biden "deserves credit for persistence" in maintaining the diplomatic framework, while Trump's team "deserves credit for pressure" that moved the final pieces into place. [9]

Nancy Okail, president and CEO of the Center for International Policy, offered a striking observation to PBS NewsHour: The breakthrough demonstrates that "effective pressure can change Israeli government behavior." [11]

This assessment suggests that the critical variable was not which administration led, but the intensity of pressure applied - something that increased significantly in the transition period.

May 2024 vs. January 2025: Structural Comparison

[15]

What Happened Next: The March 2025 Collapse

The ceasefire that both Biden and Trump claimed credit for did not hold. On March 18, 2025, Israel launched what it called a "limited military operation" to prevent Hamas regrouping, effectively ending the ceasefire. [12]

The aftermath saw competing blame narratives:

• U.S. and Israel: Blamed Hamas for violations and tunnel reconstruction
• Hamas: Accused Israel of preemptive aggression and bad faith
• International mediators: Noted both sides contributed to escalation

A new ceasefire agreement was eventually reached in October 2025, becoming effective October 10. This subsequent deal was negotiated primarily under the Trump administration. [13]

Verdict Summary: Claim-by-Claim Analysis

Conclusion

The January 2025 Gaza ceasefire demonstrates how complex diplomatic achievements resist simple political narratives. Both the Biden and Trump administrations contributed substantively:

• Biden administration: Provided the three-phase framework, maintained eight months of diplomatic engagement, built international coalition support, and established relationships with mediators Qatar and Egypt
• Trump administration: Injected new pressure on Israel through direct communication with Netanyahu, sent envoy Steve Witkoff to final negotiations, and set inauguration deadline that created urgency

The political imperative to claim sole credit led both sides to oversimplify a nuanced reality. Biden's claim of an "exact framework" overstates structural similarity. Trump's claim that only his victory made it possible dismisses substantial prior work.

Perhaps most importantly, the subsequent collapse of the ceasefire in March 2025 reveals the fragility of the achievement both claimed. The "EPIC" and "historic" characterizations proved premature as the deal lasted just 62 days.

For citizens evaluating political claims about foreign policy accomplishments, this case illustrates why binary credit attribution often obscures more than it reveals.