Trump’s Board of Peace: Will It be a Rival to UN?
Trump’s proposed Board of Peace sparks global debate over funding, leadership control, and whether it could emerge as a powerful alternative to the United Nations.
Donald Trump (PC- Social Media)
The Trump administration’s latest diplomatic initiative is sure to set a new narrative. Trump's proposed Board of Peace has sparked a global debate after reports emerged that countries seeking permanent membership must commit at least $1 billion in contributions.
According to a draft charter obtained by Bloomberg, the board, initially framed around post-war reconstruction and governance in Gaza, could evolve into a broader international peace-building body under the direct leadership of President Donald Trump.
Invitations to join have already been extended to leaders from countries including Argentina, Canada, Egypt, Turkey, and others, with figures such as former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.S. officials reportedly on initial executive panels.
Under the draft terms, Trump would serve as the inaugural chairman of the board and control invitations, agenda setting, and membership renewal, giving the U.S. outsized influence compared with other members.
Supreme Power of Chairman
Each country formally invited would have one vote, but all decisions would require the chairman’s sign-off. Nations could serve three-year terms unless they make the report’s suggested $1 billion cash contribution within the first year, in which case the term limit would not apply.
Global Reactions
Critics and diplomats are raising alarms that the Board of Peace’s structure and funding model amount to something akin to a Trump-led alternative to the United Nations, an organization Trump has frequently criticized for perceived inefficiency and bias.
The proposed board’s broad mandate reaching beyond Gaza to other international conflicts further fuels speculation about a bid to sideline traditional multilateral institutions. Several European states are reportedly assessing coordinated pushback against the charter’s current terms.
In response to the reports, the White House has labeled the $1 billion figure “misleading,” asserting that there is no required membership fee. Officials insist the board’s purpose is to strengthen international peace efforts, not to create a pay-to-play club of nations.
They emphasize that “permanent membership” is being framed as an option offered to nations demonstrating strong commitments to peace, security, and prosperity.
As invitations continue to circulate among world capitals, diplomatic circles are watching closely. Some nations may view the Board of Peace as a strategic platform for shaping post-conflict recovery. Others fear it could fragment existing multilateral efforts, creating parallel structures to the United Nations and potentially undermining longstanding international norms.