Trump’s “Board of Peace”: a new global power play that threatens UN
President Donald Trump’s newly proposed “Board of Peace” for Gaza is being sold as a pragmatic alternative to the United Nations. Yet, the charter for the body reveals ambitions far beyond Gaza’s reconstruction — and a potential challenge to global multilateral governance. What looks like a humanitarian initiative could instead be a strategic attempt to reconfigure the global order under a US-led framework, sidelining established international institutions.
What Is the Board of Peace Really For?
The Board of Peace was initially presented as a governance mechanism to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction after the devastating Israeli offensive against Hamas. However, the charter obtained by the Financial Times suggests a much broader mission. It states the Board aims to become “a more nimble and effective international peace-building body,” a phrase that hints at replacing, or at least competing with, the UN.
This is not just about Gaza. The charter’s language is intentionally vague, allowing Trump’s administration to justify future expansion into other conflict zones. Officials have already suggested Ukraine and Venezuela as potential areas where the Board could intervene.
In practice, this means the Board could function as an extra-UN peace mechanism, backed by the US and its allies, with a global mandate.
Who Controls the Board — and Why That Matters?
The charter gives Trump an extraordinary level of power. He would chair the Board and be able to appoint or remove member states. The only check on this power would be a two-thirds majority of member states — an almost impossible threshold in a body likely shaped by US influence.
This structure is not simply about governance efficiency. It reflects a deeper political goal: centralizing control in Washington, rather than creating a collaborative global institution.
The Board also gives Trump a veto power, meaning even if the majority supports a decision, he can block it. This resembles authoritarian-style decision-making, not multilateral diplomacy.
Why does the charter give Trump veto power?
The answer is simple: it would ensure US dominance in any future peace process. It also signals a major shift in how the US views international conflict resolution — not as a collective responsibility, but as a sphere of American control.
Is This an Attempt to Rival the UN?
The charter’s language is clear about the Board’s intention to be “more nimble and effective” than existing institutions. But the UN was founded precisely to prevent unilateral dominance in international affairs. Its legitimacy comes from its broad membership and its commitment to international law.
The Board of Peace, by contrast, would be built on select membership and a leadership structure designed to reinforce American power.
This has alarmed diplomats in Europe and beyond. A senior European official described the idea as “confused,” questioning whether the Board would be an alliance or a mediator.
The key problem is that the Board could be used to legitimize political goals under the guise of “peace.” If it becomes a US-backed tool, it could effectively override the UN.
How Is This Linked to Trump’s Hostility Toward the UN?
Trump has long been openly hostile to the United Nations. In the past, he threatened to withdraw the US from the organization and criticized it as ineffective and corrupt. Earlier this month, he withdrew the US from 31 UN entities, calling them contrary to “US national interests.”
This context matters because it shows that the Board is not just a new peace initiative — it is part of a broader strategy to dismantle or weaken international institutions.
By creating an alternative body, Trump can claim he is filling the gaps left by the UN while actually reducing the UN’s global relevance.
Will the Board’s Membership Become a Political Tool?
The charter states countries can join the Board, but membership is limited to a three-year term unless they contribute more than $1 billion in the first year. This is a blatant attempt to turn the Board into a pay-to-play alliance, where financial power determines influence.
This raises serious ethical and legal questions:
- Will poorer nations be excluded from decision-making?
- Will the Board become a platform for rich countries to pursue geopolitical goals?
- Will it become a way to bypass international law and UN accountability?
These are not theoretical concerns. The US has a long history of using foreign aid and military support to gain political influence. This charter simply formalizes that approach in the field of “peace.”
How Does the Board Relate to Gaza?
The Board was authorized by a UN Security Council resolution to oversee Gaza’s post-war transition. However, the charter does not mention Gaza specifically — a clear sign the Board is designed to evolve beyond the Palestinian enclave.
This raises a key question: Is Gaza simply a cover for a wider global strategy?
The Board’s structure includes a “Gaza executive board” — but it is subordinate to a higher tier controlled by Trump. This suggests Gaza could become just one chapter in a broader, long-term global intervention plan.
What Are the Risks of a US-Controlled “Peace” Body?
The dangers are profound. A Board controlled by one leader with veto power undermines the idea of collective diplomacy. It also threatens to:
- Erode the UN’s authority
- Set dangerous precedents for unilateral intervention
- Encourage powerful states to bypass international law
- Create a system where peace is negotiated by those with the most money
If the Board becomes a model, it could inspire other countries to create similar institutions. The world could drift into a fragmented system of competing peace bodies, each aligned with a different power bloc.
The charter is still being reviewed by potential members, including Saudi Arabia. If major regional powers join, the Board could gain legitimacy quickly — even as it undermines the UN.
But the biggest question remains: Is this a genuine effort to build peace, or a political tool to reassert American dominance?
