“Promises made, promises kept” is a recurring phrase used by Trump administration officials to describe his first whirlwind month in office.
US President Donald Trump’s press secretary used the phrase at the end of a 95-second video earlier this month, summing up some of his early moves, such as deporting criminal illegal immigrants, resuming construction of the wall on the Mexican border, and doing away with diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in the government and the military.
The phrase also often appears as a subheading in fact sheets the White House issues explaining specific policies, such as a recent move to end mandated COVID-19 vaccines in schools and establishing a White House faith office.
A CBS News/YouGov poll last week found that 70% of Americans believe the president is doing what he campaigned on – meaning the vast majority think he is keeping his promises, whether they like them or not.
But what about the threats?
Trump has also made threats both during the campaign and while in office, some of them relating to Israel and the hostages. Is he acting on those as well? And if not, what will be the ramifications?
His first threat, as it relates to Israel, came well before he was inaugurated, when he said that if the hostages were not released by the time he came into office on January 20, there would be “hell to pay.”
January 20 came, and – while not all the hostages were released – a ceasefire was declared that led to the release of some of them, a ceasefire attributed in no small part to the pressure he placed on all the parties: Hamas, via Egypt and Qatar, and Israel.
Trump could explain that the gates of hell did not open wide even though the hostages were not all released by saying that some hostages were released, which was his intent all along, and that this was a better outcome than what had transpired over the last year under the Biden administration.
The president’s most recent threat in this context came last Monday, a day after Hamas made a threat of its own: that it would not release the three hostages scheduled for the sixth tranche if Israel did not allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza, including mobile homes.
After hearing that, Trump again issued a threat, saying that if all the hostages were not released by Saturday at noon, the ceasefire should be canceled and “let all hell break out.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials pounced upon that threat. Not to be outflanked by Trump, Netanyahu issued a threat of his own after convening the security cabinet, saying, “The decision I passed in the cabinet, unanimously, is this: If Hamas does not return our hostages by Saturday noon, the ceasefire will end, and the IDF will resume intense fighting until Hamas is decisively defeated.”
What ensued was difficult to follow, with various officials giving differing interpretations of whether Netanyahu’s threat referred to all the hostages, as Trump said, or only to the three that were to be released on Saturday or the nine living hostages to be released under the first phase of the ceasefire deal.
The final result
The final result: Hamas released three hostages. All hell, however, did not break out.
Trump, aware that unfulfilled threats will damage his credibility, made clear on his social media platform on Saturday that any consequences for Hamas not releasing all the hostages would be Israel’s responsibility to deal with, not the US.
“Hamas has just released three hostages from Gaza, including an American citizen. They seem to be in good shape! This differs from their statement last week that they would not release any hostages,” he posted. “Israel will now have to decide what they will do about the 12:00 O’CLOCK, TODAY, DEADLINE imposed on the release of ALL HOSTAGES. The United States will back the decision they make!”
This was a clear message to all: It’s not that Trump did not back up his threat with action, but instead, he deferred to Israel, which – as it turned out – decided to proceed with the ceasefire plan as originally structured and not take military action to change it midstream and possibly jeopardize the lives of the remaining hostages still to be released.
In his statement to the press alongside US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday, Netanyahu also felt the need – to preserve credibility – to explain why he did not follow through with the threat of widespread military action even though not all the hostages were released.
Just like Trump, Netanyahu did not want to leave Israel’s enemies with the impression that he was not backing up his threat, so he engaged in some creative rhetorical calisthenics alongside Rubio to dispel that perception.
“I want to assure everyone now listening to us: President Trump and I are working in full cooperation and coordination between us,” he said. “We have a common strategy, but we cannot always share the details of this strategy with the public – including when the gates of hell will be opened, as they surely will if all our hostages are not released until the last one of them.”
The threats Trump and Netanyahu issued and how they walked them back reflect the complex dynamics of diplomacy and an understanding of the negative impact of unfulfilled threats.
While the threats did achieve some aims, namely the release of the three hostages on Saturday, they fell short of the ambitious goal Trump spelled out: the release of all hostages. Some argue that the fact all hell did not break loose at noon on Saturday shows there was little to Trump’s threat; others contend that without such threats, Hamas might never have agreed to even that release.
Trump’s unfulfilled threat may affect his and the US’s credibility in international affairs. Interestingly, the American domestic and international audiences may view the threats and lack of follow-up differently.
Internationally, the reliability of leaders is generally diminished when they issue threats and do not back them up. This may lead other international actors to question the seriousness of Trump’s words.
For instance, he said last week that he might stop aid to Jordan and Egypt if they fail to take in Gazan refugees under his proposal to relocate Gazans and then rebuild the coastal strip under US control. What conclusions are being drawn in Cairo and Amman, however, from the ultimatum he issued on the hostages that simply came and went?
Moreover, issuing threats without follow-up may embolden Hamas and others in the region – such as the Iranians – who might see this lack of follow-through as a lack of determination and act accordingly.
On the other hand, the lack of immediate consequences for the failure to release all the hostages could also be read as a sign of diplomatic flexibility – suggesting that despite the rhetoric, there is room for maneuvering with Trump and, following an opening gambit, he will show pragmatism.
However, for the American domestic audience, particularly those who support Trump, the very issuing of an ultimatum could be seen as a sign of strength, of America asserting itself abroad, regardless of the follow-up. In this case, the threat itself is framed as a bargaining tactic intended all along to create leverage to achieve a more limited goal.
While many Americans might see this tough talk as a sign of strength, the words alone are sure to lose their punch and effectiveness over time if not followed up by real action.