Trump says Hamas agreed to next phase of Gaza plan that would require Hamas disarmament

President Donald Trump said on July 31 that Hamas has agreed to the next phase of a proposed peace plan for Gaza, describing disarmament by Hamas as a condition of the plan. The comments were reported by CBS News during a segment featuring correspondent Charlie D’Agata and contributor Sam Vinograd.

In the CBS report, Trump characterized the agreement as moving the process to a later step intended to support “peace” in Gaza, linking progress on the plan to Hamas disarming. The statement did not provide additional operational details in the CBS summary, such as timelines, verification mechanisms, or what other parties would be required to do concurrently.

The reported linkage between a peace arrangement and disarmament is a central demand in many proposed frameworks for ending or reducing hostilities in Gaza, where the presence of armed groups and their capabilities are often treated as core obstacles to durable security arrangements. Under Trump’s description, the planned next phase would therefore hinge on Hamas giving up its weapons.

The CBS segment frames the statement as part of a broader Gaza peace effort and indicates that Trump’s comments were presented as an update on what Hamas is said to have accepted. The report does not specify whether the “agreement” involved formal documentation, third-party mediation, or an explicit timetable for implementing the disarmament requirement.

For civilians in Gaza and surrounding communities, disarmament conditions are typically tied to the expectation of reduced fighting and improved security conditions, including the possibility of more stable access to basic services. However, the CBS summary does not state what immediate humanitarian changes would follow the “next phase,” or whether any phased cease-fire terms would be attached to disarmament.

The next steps, based on the CBS account, would depend on how the proposed disarmament condition is defined and enforced, including any role for outside monitors or participating governments. Without further detail in the reported segment, it remains unclear what verification would look like, who would control or oversee weapons collection, and how disputes would be handled if compliance is contested.