Trump’s Board of Peace is a direct attack on the UN system

President Donald Trump’s suggestion that his newly formed “Board of Peace” “might” replace the United Nations has amplified concerns that the body—originally meant to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction—could become a personal vehicle for Trump to supersede the international institution founded 80 years ago to maintain global peace.

What was meant to be a limited post-war rebuilding body has now become a sprawling international organization with an increasingly ambiguous mandate. With Trump set to indefinitely chair the board, critics fear this is less about peace and more about power.

Who Is Being Invited—and Why Does It Matter?

Even before Trump’s comments, diplomats had serious concerns about the board’s membership and structure—particularly the $1 billion fee for permanent membership, which appears less like diplomacy and more like a pay-to-play peace club.

Trump is set to host a signing ceremony at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where his controversial stance on Greenland has already angered NATO allies. The board’s founding executive committee includes:

• Jared Kushner
• Marco Rubio
• Steve Witkoff
• Tony Blair

And the charter suggests Trump could remain chairman even beyond his presidency, removable only by unanimous vote from his hand-picked executive board.

Is this the structure of a peace body—or the framework of a political empire?

Why Are Allies So Worried About This Board?

Around 35 of the 50 invited nations are expected to attend the Davos ceremony, but many major allies are hesitating or outright declining. France and Norway have refused, citing concerns about how the board would work alongside the UN.

Even more alarming: Russia, China, and Belarus have been invited.

That’s not a misprint. The same leaders who have actively undermined global stability are being offered permanent seats in a body meant to promote peace.

Can Russia Be Trusted to Join a Peace Organization?

Trump claimed Russian President Vladimir Putin has accepted the invitation, despite Putin’s ongoing war in Ukraine and long history of destabilizing global order.

Putin has not confirmed joining, but he has floated paying the $1 billion fee using frozen Russian assets in the U.S.—a proposal that would effectively turn a peace organization into a political bargaining chip.

Critics are blunt:

• Former U.S. diplomat Robert Wood warned Putin would use the board to “undermine the UN.”
• British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said Putin “does not belong in any organization with peace in the name.”

If the board is meant to foster peace, why is it inviting those who wage war?

Is the Board’s Charter a Threat to the UN?

The charter does not even mention Gaza, despite the board being initially designed for Gaza reconstruction. Instead, it frames the board as a global peace institution with a sweeping mandate to intervene anywhere.

Trump’s comments made the intention clear: the board could replace the UN, a body Trump has repeatedly attacked. The charter’s language about “institutions that have too often failed” is an obvious jab at the UN.

Why Are Some Countries Refusing to Join?

Several European nations have raised legitimate legal and constitutional concerns:

• France criticized the charter’s compatibility with UN principles.
• Norway questioned how the board would work alongside the UN.
• Italy cited constitutional incompatibility and refused to attend the signing.
• Ireland called for careful consideration, noting the board’s mandate extends far beyond Gaza.

Is Peace Being Sold to the Highest Bidder?

The board’s structure is inherently corruptible. A $1 billion payment for permanent membership makes the board look less like an international institution and more like a business venture disguised as diplomacy.

As former diplomat Robert Wood said:

“Not every country that can fork out $1 billion is best suited to oversee peace.”

That truth is more relevant than ever.

What Does This Mean for the Future of Global Diplomacy?

If Trump’s Board of Peace continues to expand its mandate beyond Gaza, and invites authoritarian and war-waging states into its ranks, the UN’s role could be severely undermined.

This is not a new idea—it’s a familiar pattern:

• undermining global institutions
• replacing them with personal power networks
• legitimizing authoritarian regimes
• selling influence to the highest bidder