Trump pledges $10 billion to Board of Peace without funding plan, sparking legal and diplomatic alarm

President Donald Trump told the inaugural Board of Peace meeting in Washington that “the United States is going to make a contribution of $10 billion to the Board of Peace,” a dramatic pledge that he did not accompany with any explanation of where the money would come from or whether Congress had been asked to approve it. The announcement prompted immediate political backlash and sharpened international questions about the committee’s authority, governance and capacity to address Gaza’s reconstruction needs.

Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) responded bluntly, calling the pledge “Totally illegal.” A White House presentation at the event also included announcements that member nations had pledged a combined $7 billion and that the United Nations and FIFA would contribute $2 billion and $75 million respectively, figures that organizers hailed as initial seed money despite the United Nations’ long-term estimate that rebuilding Gaza could exceed $70 billion over decades.

The summit featured an eclectic cast of attendees, from Argentina’s Javier Milei to FIFA president Gianni Infantino and Kazakhstan’s Kassym-Jomart Tokayev. Dignitaries were photographed wearing red “USA” caps distributed at the event; Infantino was shown donning one while unveiling a sporting partnership with the committee. Organizers framed the gathering as a push to stabilize Gaza and to mobilize reconstruction and security resources, but left key operational and legal questions unanswered.

One of the most consequential unanswered questions is the basic budgetary path for the U.S. pledge. “He gave no details on where the money would come from or if the administration had even requested it from Congress, which would have to approve the funds,” Shawn McCreesh wrote in a live update from the event. Under U.S. law, commitments of federal funds require congressional appropriation or a statutory authority; absent that, critics say a presidential promise cannot bind U.S. finances.

The Board floated ambitious plans beyond financing. Organizers discussed a potential U.S.-led multinational force for postwar Gaza that would, according to the plan’s public outline, require the full disarmament of Hamas and support from Israel. Possible troop contributors mentioned in summit briefings included Albania, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kosovo and Morocco, though none of those governments was shown to have signed binding commitments at the event.

Diplomatically the initiative has produced mixed signals. Several Gulf and regional leaders were reported among those pledging sums, yet other Western capitals signaled caution and sought more detail before endorsing the Board’s authority. Observers pointed to the mismatch between the announced pledges, roughly $19 billion if one combines the U.S. $10 billion, $7 billion from member states, $2 billion from the U.N. and FIFA’s $75 million, and the much larger reconstruction need identified by the U.N.

Beyond money, questions about governance, auditing and anti-corruption safeguards remain. The Board’s composition, described by some critics as tilted toward rightwing and authoritarian allies, has heightened scrutiny over whether reconstruction funds would be distributed with established international oversight. Trump framed his $10 billion as “a small amount … to ‘achieve the dream of bringing lasting harmony to a region tortured by centuries of war, suffering and carnage’,” but offered no timetable, disbursement rules or legal basis to show how that dream would be financed or policed.

The pledge and the summit leave Washington and international partners with immediate choices: press the administration for a formal appropriation request and legal justification; demand transparent governance and auditing for any funds; or decline to participate until the Board presents a concrete, accountable plan. The lack of those answers may now prove the Board’s most consequential legacy.