Trump launches Board of Peace to oversee Gaza ceasefire, prompting split

President Donald Trump used a high-profile appearance at the World Economic Forum in Davos to unveil the Board of Peace, a new international initiative he presented as an oversight body for the Israel–Hamas ceasefire and Gaza reconstruction. Trump signed a founding charter at a public ceremony and positioned himself as chairman of the fledgling body, saying its first focus will be Gaza but that it could take on broader mediation roles.

Organizers and U.S. officials said roughly 35 countries had agreed to sign the charter or were counted among initial participants. The administration distributed lists naming states across the Middle East, Europe, Asia and Latin America, including Bahrain, Morocco, Argentina, Belgium, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. Israel’s prime minister pledged to join, though he did not attend the signing. The White House also said more than 50 nations had been invited as the board seeks to expand membership in coming weeks.

The launch produced mixed diplomatic reactions and pointed questions about governance. Several major U.S. and European allies held back, with Britain declining to sign for now amid concerns about possible involvement by Russia’s president. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said President Putin "highly values peacemaking efforts by President Donald Trump and his team," leaving open Moscow’s posture. Reporters at Davos noted that operational rules spelled out in the charter, such as voting procedures, veto rights and legal authority, were not published.

Financing is a central unresolved issue. Media outlets reported that a $1 billion price tag for permanent membership has been discussed publicly, but it is uncertain whether any country has agreed to such a commitment. Critics warn the board risks duplicating or undermining existing institutions if its funding and mandate are not clarified, and diplomats expressed unease about a body that could operate alongside or parallel to the United Nations.

The Trump administration framed the initiative as complementary to the UN rather than a replacement. Trump said the board would "work with the United Nations" and described the UN as having "great potential that had not been fully utilised." Administration briefings and some allied statements suggested the board "could be ‘most consequential bodies ever created’" in overseeing reconstruction, accountability and resource mobilization.

Beyond diplomacy, the initiative has immediate economic implications. A high-profile international reconstruction mandate would shift multilateral aid flows and private investment prospects for Gaza and the wider Levant. Uncertainty over who will fund operations and how legal oversight will be structured elevates sovereign and project risk, which could raise financing costs for reconstruction and temper private-sector engagement in construction and infrastructure. Greater involvement by nontraditional donor states could reconfigure aid patterns, with long-term consequences for global governance and the architecture of post-conflict reconstruction.

For now, the Board of Peace exists as a signed charter and a leadership claim; its practical authority, budgetary backbone and relationship with the UN will be the determiners of whether it becomes an effective mechanism or a contested new forum that reshapes the rules of international peacemaking.