Overview
On January 22, in Davos, Switzerland, with over a dozen world leaders at his side, President Trump officially launched the Board of Peace. The new international framework was originally conceived as a mechanism to support the implementation of the ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip, but its scope has been presented by US officials as extending far beyond one region to become a broader platform for mediating international conflicts. The Board is intended to anchor the implementation of phase two of the ceasefire deal, just announced—particularly governance, reconstruction, and demilitarization—while garnering buy-in from a coalition of nations. However, its current structure, in addition to Washington’s efforts to position the Board as an international peacekeeping body with a broad mandate, could put it at odds with international bodies like the UN, and create new risks for the global business environment as the US seeks to exert influence outside of traditional multilateral venues.
Authority and Structure
Unlike other multilateral bodies, the Board of Peace is built around a heavily US-centric governance framework and designed from the start to build in public-private partnerships. At the apex of the Board’s structure is its Chairman, a position held by Donald Trump, who also acts as the chief architect of the organization and, in practice, its dominant decision-maker. According to the board’s charter, the Chairman has final authority on the interpretation and application of the Board’s charter. He holds a veto over key decisions, including membership decisions and resolutions. The charter allows the Chairman to adopt resolutions on behalf of the Board without prior consultation. Trump will be a member for life under the current charter text. This exceptional concentration of power is highly unusual for an international organization and places the US—or rather President Trump as an individual—at the center of the entire enterprise.
Supporting the Chairman is a smaller Executive Board, designed to drive implementation in core mission areas. The executive tier is expected to include prominent political and business figures, both US-based and international. This executive board is tasked with executing key operational elements such as governance capacity-building, investment attraction, reconstruction oversight, and large-scale funding mobilization. Among its members are US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner (Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law), US Deputy National Security Adviser Robert Gabriel, American Business leader Mark Rowan, Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and World Bank President Ajay Banga.
Critics have noted that many of the executive board’s figures come from political or economic backgrounds closely allied with the US, raising questions about neutrality in mediation and peacebuilding.
Under the executive layer sits the broader membership body—essentially the full Board of Peace. Member states are represented by heads of state or senior government officials. Membership is on a three-year term, renewable under conditions set by the Chairman. Countries that contribute at least $1 billion to the Board within the first year receive permanent seats rather than fixed term appointments. This funding mechanism effectively creates two tiers of participation: wealthy permanent contributors and shorter-term participants.
The Board does not operate alone in Gaza. Two subsidiary structures have been set up: A Palestinian Technocratic Government (the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza) to manage daily administration; and an International Stabilization Force, commanded by a US general, focusing on security and demilitarization components. These bodies are accountable to and work under the oversight of the Board. While the Palestinian governance committee has been established, the International Stabilization Force is still taking shape.
Board Membership in Flux
At the time of writing, membership shows a mix of Middle Eastern, Central Asian, and other developing states, alongside middle powers from Europe and Latin America. Roughly 20 nations have formally accepted invitations to join the Board, although the White House announced 35 countries have confirmed their membership, with many more having been invited. Countries publicly reported as members include Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, Qatar, Morocco, Bahrain, Indonesia, Israel (with political disagreements over composition), Kazakhstan, Hungary, Vietnam, Argentina, and Belarus. Azerbaijan has confirmed its Founding Member status.
Several Western nations have expressed hesitation or refusal. Those include France, Norway, and Sweden, which have declined to participate, citing concerns that the Board could undercut UN authority. Others—including the UK, Germany, China, and Russia—have received invitations but not publicly committed. President Putin on Thursday said Russia is willing to provide $1 billion to the Board using its frozen assets held in the US, alongside an unspecified amount for the reconstruction of Ukraine. Overall, only a subset of invited states has joined, and Western European participation is divided.
Agenda: What the Board Says It Will Do
Official rhetoric about the Board’s goals centers on promoting peace through stability, reconstruction, and governance support, starting with Gaza but potentially expanding to solve conflicts throughout the globe.
As part of the post-war plan, the Board is meant to oversee reconstruction efforts in Gaza, support demilitarization and the strengthening of governance institutions, and coordinate with the Palestinian technocratic body and international stabilization force. This aligns with the second phase of Trump’s Gaza plan announced in October 2025.
Beyond Gaza, US officials have signaled ambitions for the Board to act as a more general conflict-resolution platform, not limited to the Middle East, potentially involving other conflicts like Ukraine or the Venezuela crisis. However, the Board’s charter as currently circulated does not explicitly mention Gaza, describing instead a broader mandate to “promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict.”
Key Challenges and Criticisms
The Board’s structure—especially the disproportionate authority vested in a single Chairman—has raised concerns. Critics see the Board as an attempt to shift power away from the UN Security Council and other established multilateral frameworks. Some see it as a US-dominated body tailored to American geopolitical interests, rather than an impartial conflict-resolution mechanism.
Charging a $1 billion contribution for permanent membership has also drawn criticism. Smaller or poorer countries may be excluded from long-term participation, and there are questions about the transparency and accountability of funds and how they will be allocated. This “pay-to-play” dynamic is atypical in peace institutions and could undermine broader participation.
Key global players such as China, Russia, and the European Union have not committed, limiting the Board’s claim to universal legitimacy. Western European states’ refusal or hesitation signals skepticism about the Board eclipsing existing UN mechanisms, complicating its international credibility. Others have raised strong concern about how the membership of certain countries, namely Russia and Belarus, would impact global efforts to end Russia’s war in Ukraine and their ability to successfully cooperate on issues related to peacebuilding.
But above all it is the constraints on the ground in Gaza which are the most concerning. Despite institutional ambition, the situation in Gaza remains highly volatile, as Hamas has not agreed to full disarmament, and as the humanitarian crisis and ongoing clashes continue to impede stabilization. The Board’s success will depend on translating strategy into tangible improvements amid complex local dynamics.
Israel’s Position
Israel has expressed conditional support for the Board of Peace, viewing it primarily as a vehicle to advance its core security objective of the full disarmament of Hamas and the prevention of any future re-militarization of Gaza. Israeli officials have emphasized that any international framework overseeing Gaza must prioritize security enforcement, dismantle militant infrastructure, and ensure that governance arrangements do not allow armed groups to reassert control. At the same time, Israel has voiced strong objections to the potential involvement of Turkey and Qatar in the Board’s Executive Committee. Both countries are seen in Israel as having maintained close political and financial ties or channels of engagement with Hamas, leading Israeli leaders to question their neutrality and suitability for senior decision-making roles within a body tasked with demilitarization and post-conflict stabilization. These objections have underscored broader Israeli concerns about the composition of the Board’s leadership and the risk that certain participants could dilute or undermine the security-focused mandate Israel considers essential to any sustainable post-war arrangement in Gaza. Israel has made its position clear to the Trump administration.
Conclusion
The Board of Peace represents a reimagining of international peace institution building, combining elements of traditional diplomacy with a highly centralized governance approach under US leadership. The Board of Peace is the latest US-led approach to freezing global conflicts, eschewing traditional multilateral diplomatic fora in favor of direct intervention and transactional deal-making. The body’s unorthodox structure creates significant opportunities for the global business environment, with private interests built in as a key consultatory element of the Board, and commercial development in Gaza (and likely elsewhere) seen as a key contributor to success by the Trump administration. But its tension with more traditional organizations and their supporters presages potential rerouting of longstanding economic and diplomatic relationships. The future impact of the Board of Peace, however, will be heavily dependent on its success on the ground in Gaza—where significant challenges remain, like the specifics of disarming a resistant Hamas—as well as on whether it can get more key global players to endorse this new style of peacebuilding.
