Donald Trump’s newly established Board of Peace, intended to promote a resolution for Gaza, is encountering significant resistance from key global players. As the inaugural meeting approaches, influential nations including the UK, France, Germany, and Canada are reportedly opting out. Concerns over the board’s structure and Trump’s overwhelming authority are fuelling this reluctance, suggesting a shift away from traditional diplomacy.
The Board of Peace: Origins and Intentions
Launched under a UN resolution last year, the Board of Peace was initially conceived with a singular mission: to implement Trump’s 20-point peace plan for Gaza. However, the board has rapidly transformed into what many are perceiving as a Trump-centric initiative, raising alarms about its broader implications for international relations.
In his remarks at the board’s charter announcement on 22 January 2026, Trump asserted the potential of this body to become “one of the most consequential” in history. Yet, his ambitions appear to stretch beyond Gaza, as the board’s charter lacks any mention of the region. Instead, Trump hinted at a more expansive role, stating, “We can do numerous other things once this board is completely formed.”
A Selective Membership
Despite an invitation extended to approximately 60 countries, only about 20 have committed to joining the Board of Peace, a list that includes nations such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Belarus. Notably, many of these are not democracies, which diminishes the board’s appeal among traditional democratic allies. According to reports, this limited participation has further dissuaded established democracies from engaging with the initiative.
Key allies have expressed unease about Trump’s unrestrained control over the board, which allows him to dictate its agenda and make unilateral decisions. As chair for life, Trump possesses the authority to convene meetings at will and veto any actions taken by the board’s executive committee, which he also appoints. This concentration of power raises questions about the board’s legitimacy and effectiveness as a peace-promoting entity.
International Reactions and Concerns
The scepticism surrounding the Board of Peace is palpable, particularly among European leaders. France has publicly announced its intention to abstain from participation, citing fears that the board may undermine the existing framework of the United Nations. In a pointed response to French President Emmanuel Macron’s reluctance, Trump declared, “I’ll put a 200% tariff on his wines and champagnes,” indicating his readiness to engage in trade threats in lieu of diplomatic discussion.
The implications of a Trump-led initiative that could rival the UN are particularly troubling for nations wary of his unpredictable approach to foreign policy. His recent threats to block infrastructure projects with Canada, for instance, demonstrate a willingness to leverage power in contentious ways that could complicate international relations.
The Future of Peacekeeping
The Board of Peace, with its hefty $1 billion entry fee, positions itself as a more agile alternative to the UN’s peacekeeping efforts. However, its viability hinges on international trust—something that many leaders are hesitant to extend to Trump, given his track record of erratic decision-making.
As the board prepares for its first gathering, the absence of major allies underscores the challenge ahead. Can a body led by a figure as polarising as Trump genuinely foster global harmony? The answer remains uncertain, as many nations contemplate the implications of engaging with a board that appears more as an extension of Trump’s personal ambitions than a genuine diplomatic initiative.
Why it Matters
The emergence of Trump’s Board of Peace raises significant questions about the future of international diplomacy and peacebuilding. With key democratic nations choosing to distance themselves, the board risks becoming an isolated entity lacking the moral and strategic backing necessary to effect real change. As global tensions persist, the effectiveness of peacekeeping bodies hinges more than ever on their ability to operate within a framework of cooperation and mutual respect—principles that are currently in jeopardy.
