The Trump administration has broken with decades of diplomatic precedent. Presidential hostage envoy Adam Boehler now sits across from Hamas representatives in Doha in a dialogue with a designated terrorist organization. Are such talks necessary, or do they represent a dangerous capitulation undermining American principles?
Washington’s official stance long has been to not meet with or negotiate directly with terrorists. In 1979, President Jimmy Carter fired Andrew Young, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, after he met directly with Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) representatives. Within a decade, however, U.S. diplomats like Dennis Ross were building careers upon the same thing. Ross’s efforts legitimized the PLO and culminated in the Oslo peace process that transformed it into a recognized political entity, all without securing lasting peace or Palestinian disarmament.
The Hamas Covenant calls for the elimination of the State of Israel and genocide against Jews.
The Obama and Trump administrations pursued a similar engagement with the Taliban, conducting negotiations in Qatar that culminated in the February 29, 2020, Agreement. That accord empowered the forces the United States had spent two decades fighting. The Reagan administration’s Iran-Contra affair represented another compromise, engaging Hezbollah indirectly through Iranian intermediaries. Exposure of those contacts created a scandal that paralyzed Reagan’s second term and damaged U.S. credibility without diminishing the threat.
The Hamas Covenant calls for the elimination of the State of Israel and genocide against Jews. Just weeks into the Obama administration, Senator John Kerry became the first U.S. lawmaker to visit Gaza in about a decade. Until Kerry’s visit, congressmen avoided visiting the Gaza Strip because it was run by Hamas. The terror group was thrilled. “We believe Hamas’s message is reaching its destination,” Ahmed Yusuf, Hamas’s chief political adviser, said. In effect, Kerry legitimized Hamas.
Proponents argue the current hostage crisis necessitates such face-to-face talks. Fifty-nine hostages remain in Hamas custody, with at least 22 still alive, including American citizen Edan Alexander. History, however, suggests that government-level negotiations with terrorist organizations backfires.
Negotiating with terrorists presents a paradox: The impulse to save lives today can strengthen those who would take more lives tomorrow. Yahya Sinwar, architect of the October 7, 2023, massacre, is a case in point: Israel released him in a 2011 exchange of one Israeli hostage for more than 1,000 Palestinian terrorists and security prisoners. Such exchanges reward terror, allow terror groups to reconstitute, and encourage further hostage-taking. Any agreement with Hamas must be understood as a temporary, tactical necessity—not a strategic realignment. Once American and Israeli hostages return home safely, U.S. policy must refocus immediately on Hamas’s defeat.
Moreover, diplomatic necessity appears questionable when alternative approaches exist. Israel has previously employed specialized military units to extract hostages, a high-risk but potentially more effective strategy than negotiations that strengthen Hamas politically.
The optics alone—U.S. officials meeting Hamas representatives in Doha’s luxury hotels—grants Hamas a diplomatic victory it leverages internationally.
International pressure on Qatar—Hamas’s primary enabler and current host—represents another lever. For years, Doha has channeled hundreds of millions of dollars to Hamas under humanitarian pretexts while providing luxury accommodations for its leadership. This financial and diplomatic support has enabled Hamas to construct elaborate tunnel networks and stockpile weapons. Rather than engaging Hamas directly, the United States could apply maximum pressure on Qatar through financial sanctions and legal measures targeting state sponsors of terrorism.
Direct engagement risks conferring unwarranted legitimacy upon Hamas. The optics alone—U.S. officials meeting Hamas representatives in Doha’s luxury hotels—grants Hamas a diplomatic victory it leverages internationally. Hamas portrays these talks as recognition of its political status, undermining efforts to isolate the organization.
If engagement is unavoidable, it must operate concurrently with—not replace—efforts to destroy Hamas. The Trump administration must establish parameters if these talks continue. Any hostage negotiations must exclude political concessions that preserve Hamas’s operational capacity. Discussions must maintain a humanitarian focus rather than addressing broader ceasefire terms that Hamas would exploit to rebuild. Diplomatic engagement must terminate upon hostage resolution with public commitment to Hamas’s destruction. There can be neither diplomatic recognition nor normalization of Hamas’s status.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected Hamas’s blackmail attempts, recognizing that any agreement preserving Hamas’s capability would make another October 7 “a question of time.” His stance reflects a clarity earned through decades of terrorist attacks: Hamas seeks not peace but Israel’s destruction. American policymakers likewise must resist the temptation to accommodate Hamas, maintaining a commitment to Hamas’s defeat regardless of tactical necessities.
