At the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 22, 2026, United States President Donald Trump launched the Board of Peace as a new international body aimed at reshaping the world’s approach to conflict resolution. The initiative has witnessed early support from U.S. affiliates but unease among many traditional allies. The debate centres on a fundamental contention: is the Board of Peace an attempt to build a global order outside the United Nations?
What is the Board of Peace?
According to the White House, the Board of Peace is designed as a high-level international forum that will oversee the process of stabilising conflict zones by administering ceasefires, reconstruction, and long-term political stability. Gaza is an immediate focus, where the Board of Peace plans to help implement President Trump’s Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict, a framework with 20 points announced in late 2025, which called for a ceasefire, the return of hostages, the demilitarisation of Hamas, technocratic governance in Gaza, and international reconstruction.
The Board intends to facilitate donor funding, oversee reconstruction timelines, and ensure political accountability during the transition period. Trump has appointed himself as chairman, alongside senior political and economic figures for supervising specific portfolios related to investment, development, and peacebuilding. Although the White House affirms that the Board is not a peacekeeping force and has no intention of replacing existing international mechanisms, its leadership structure and formal charter signal something more permanent.
The Charter of the Board permits its chairman discretion over membership, operational priorities, and agenda formulation. While participating states are represented and consulted, decision-making authority ultimately rests with the chairman. Trump has also suggested a small circle of senior political and economic figures, including U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, former British prime minister Tony Blair, Jared Kushner, and World Bank President Ajay Banga, to support the Board’s work across diplomacy, reconstruction, and investment.
According to reports, the Board would be funded through long-term or permanent participation, which could require each member to provide significant financial contributions of millions or even billions of dollars. Supporters argue that this creates serious capacity and decorum. Critics argue that the structure gatekeeps wealth and political alignment over universality.
How did the Board of Peace Originate?
The Board of Peace originated as a result of Israel’s war on Gaza that dragged on through 2024 and 2025. In October 2025, the U.S. started to push for a post-war framework that went beyond diplomacy centred around a ceasefire. The Gaza Board of Peace plan, Trump argues, is a new mechanism that combines political authority with financial leverage, and that existing international mechanisms had failed to end the cycle of conflict.
As a result, in November 2025, the United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution that incorporated elements of the Gaza plan, including reconstruction and political stabilisation through international involvement. The resolution conferred some level of international legitimacy on the Board, but mainly with respect to Gaza. However, the scope of the Board had visibly expanded at Davos, where Trump illustrated it as not Gaza-specific but as a model for resolving conflicts globally, triggering strong international criticism.
Who is Invited, and What is the Response to the Board?
Around 60 countries have reportedly been invited by the United States to join the Board of Peace. Countries that have accepted include the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, Morocco, Indonesia, Hungary, Kosovo, Argentina, Vietnam, and Cambodia.
Countries that have signalled positive participation, or expressed any intent to join, include Albania, Bulgaria, Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Paraguay, and several other Central Asian and Eastern European states. Around 19 countries were represented at the signing of the Charter in Davos, which formed the Board’s initial foundation. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated on January 26, 2026, that 20 additional countries have “signed up to join US President Donald Trump’s Board of Peace,” without disclosing any names.
Countries that have declined or remain hesitant include France, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada, China, Russia, and India, which has been invited but remains undecided.
Why are Countries Declining or Hesitating?
Governments that have declined or delayed joining the Board have cited several overlapping concerns.
First, there is concern that the Board would undermine the United Nations. European officials have argued that the Board risks duplicating or marginalising the UN apparatus for conflict resolution. The concern stems from both institutional pride and precedent. The resolution of conflicts by powerful states through exclusive mechanisms could erode the authority of universal bodies like the UN Security Council.
Second, the governance structure of the Board of Peace concentrates power in the office of the Chairman held by U.S. President Trump. The role has final authority over the creation and functioning of subsidiary bodies. Unlike the United Nations, where authority is relatively distributed within the UN Security Council and limitedly across member states through bodies such as the General Assembly. The concern lies with the knowledge that a peace institution would be closely associated with a single leader, and handpicked leadership would diminish collective ownership and neutrality essential for international legitimacy.
Third, concerns have emerged over a selection mechanism based on funding. The reported financial thresholds for participation have reinforced perceptions that the Board is exclusive rather than universal. For smaller or poorer states, this structure raises questions about equity. In wealthier democracies, it fuels a concern about peace diplomacy becoming transactional.
Fourth, political optics matter. Some governments are uneasy about being seen to endorse an initiative that includes countries with contested human rights records or that may sideline Palestinian political representation in Gaza’s future governance.
Finally, there is uncertainty about mandate expansion. Even states sympathetic to Gaza stabilisation worry about where the Board’s authority ends. What begins as a reconstruction mechanism could evolve into a parallel diplomatic authority without clear international oversight.
Is the Board of Peace an Effort to Replace the UN?
The White House insists it is not. U.S. officials argue that the Board of Peace is intended to complement existing institutions by filling gaps where multilateral processes have stalled, rather than to supplant the United Nations. Framed this way, the initiative is presented as a pragmatic response to diplomatic paralysis rather than a challenge to the existing international order. In diplomacy, perception matters as much as intent. Many governments view the combination of unilateral leadership, selective membership, and global ambition more like an alternative architecture for managing international order.