Donald Trump’s newly unveiled “Board of Peace” is already stirring global debate, even before it officially begins its work. Announced with trademark flair at the World Economic Forum in Davos, the initiative is being pitched by Trump as an unprecedented mechanism to resolve conflicts and promote global stability. Critics, however, see something more disruptive: a powerful US-led body that could rival or weaken the United Nations.
So what exactly is the Board of Peace, why is it controversial, and is it really meant to replace the UN?
What is the Board of Peace?
Trump first floated the idea in September, framing it as a tool to secure a ceasefire in Gaza. Since then, the concept has expanded dramatically. According to the draft charter, the Board of Peace will not be limited to Gaza but will instead address major conflicts worldwide.
Under the proposed structure, Trump himself will serve as the board’s inaugural chairman, a role he can reportedly hold for life. The chairman is expected to wield sweeping authority, including veto power over decisions and the ability to remove members under certain conditions. That concentration of power has immediately raised eyebrows among diplomats and international law experts.
Trump described the launch as “a very exciting day, long in the making,” claiming that dozens of countries are eager to join what he called “the most prestigious board ever formed.”
Who is involved?
Around 60 nations have been invited to join the Board of Peace. So far, roughly 30 to 35 have agreed, according to senior US officials. Membership comes with a controversial condition: countries seeking permanent status are expected to contribute up to $1 billion.
Those reportedly on board include Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Qatar, Jordan and Bahrain, alongside NATO members Turkey and Hungary. Several countries from Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe have also agreed to participate.
More controversially, invitations were extended to authoritarian leaders, including Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko. Their inclusion has fueled criticism from European governments and human rights groups.
On the executive side, the White House has named a powerful inner circle: US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, special envoy Steve Witkoff, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, former British prime minister Tony Blair, and World Bank president Ajay Banga. Bulgarian diplomat Nickolay Mladenov will serve as the board’s high representative for Gaza.
What role will it play in Gaza?
Gaza remains the board’s first and most immediate test. The body was granted a mandate by the UN Security Council to oversee a fragile ceasefire that took effect last October. It is also authorised to deploy a temporary International Stabilisation Force.
Under the Trump administration’s plan, Gaza’s day-to-day governance will be handled by a council of 15 Palestinian leaders, who will ultimately report to the Board of Peace. Phase two of the plan, now underway, focuses on demilitarisation and reconstruction.
Despite these plans, violence has not fully stopped. Israel and Hamas continue to accuse each other of ceasefire violations, adding to skepticism about whether an external board can enforce lasting peace.
Is it meant to replace the UN?
Officially, the White House insists no. Trump has said the Board of Peace will “work with many others, including the United Nations.” Still, the structure and scale of the initiative tell a more complicated story.
Unlike the UN, the Board of Peace is not based on equal representation or multilateral consensus. Its leadership is heavily US-centric, with Trump holding exceptional authority. Several countries, including France, Norway, Sweden and Slovenia, have already declined to join, citing concerns over legitimacy and governance.
Critics warn that the board risks undermining existing international institutions by shifting diplomacy away from established frameworks. Supporters counter that the UN has often been slow and ineffective, and that a smaller, more decisive body could deliver results.
Global reaction and local doubts
While Trump claims “everybody wants to be a part of it,” reactions on the ground are mixed. In Gaza, many Palestinians view the initiative with suspicion. As one observer put it, there is a feeling that Palestinians are being treated as a problem to be managed rather than people with rights.
For now, the Board of Peace exists somewhere between bold experiment and geopolitical gamble. Whether it becomes a genuine force for conflict resolution or a symbol of unilateral power will depend on what happens next — and whether the world chooses to follow Trump’s lead.
If you find my content helpful, consider buying me a coffee to show your appreciation and help me continue creating.
Buy Me a Coffee