Board of peace by trump. What does it mean and who is backing it. What countries support
Executive summary
President Donald Trump’s newly launched “Board of Peace” is an international body he presented as a vehicle to oversee reconstruction in Gaza and a platform to advance broader conflict-resolution efforts, with its founding charter signed at Davos and linked to UN Security Council Resolution 2803 [1] [2]. The initiative has attracted a mix of mostly non‑European and regional powers—35 countries were earlier reported as invited and several dozen have signaled varying levels of commitment—while many traditional U.S. allies in Western Europe and Canada have stayed away or declined [3] [4] [5].
1. What the Board of Peace is claimed to do and how it is structured
The charter frames the Board as an international organisation that “seeks to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict,” with an initial emphasis on Gaza reconstruction under a UN‑backed framework [1] [2]. The White House has named a “founding Executive Board” that includes Secretary of State Marco Rubio, special envoy Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, former British prime minister Tony Blair and World Bank President Ajay Banga, and it states that Trump will serve as chair with unique appointment powers over the executive apparatus [1].
2. Funding, membership tiers and the ‘pay-to-play’ controversy
The charter reportedly offers permanent seats to states contributing $1 billion each, a feature the White House said is a marker of “deep commitment” rather than a minimum fee, but critics and some reporting have described the arrangement as resembling a “pay‑to‑play” model and a source of political controversy [1] [2]. Leaked provisions suggest three states formally agreeing could bring the charter into force, members would have renewable three‑year terms, and permanent membership would be tied to large financial contributions—details that have raised legal and political questions among potential participants [6].
3. Who has signed on and who is publicly supporting it
Countries publicly reported as joining or endorsing the Board include a broad set of Middle East and non‑Western states: Israel, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Indonesia, Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt and others are listed among signatories or supporters in multiple outlets, with Reuters, CBC, BBC and Anadolu compiling overlapping lists that also include Argentina, Morocco, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kosovo, Hungary and Belarus [3] [4] [6] [5] [7]. Official count varies by outlet—some reports said about 35 had been invited and around 19 to 35 had signed the charter at Davos—reflecting discrepancies in government confirmations and last‑minute changes [8] [2] [9].
4. Notable absences, reservations and geopolitical friction
Key Western allies — including Canada, the U.K., France, Germany, Italy and many other European states — either declined, delayed or publicly questioned joining, with leaders warning that the Board appears to go beyond the UN mandate for Gaza and could create a parallel structure to the United Nations [10] [9] [5]. Greece’s prime minister and other European officials explicitly said most European countries cannot join because of legal and mandate concerns, underscoring a transatlantic split [9].
5. Russia, China and the broader geopolitical stakes
Russia was reported to have been invited and was “considering” participation, with President Putin reportedly saying Moscow was prepared to offer $1 billion from frozen assets, while China and other UN Security Council members remained cautious, reflecting concerns that the Board could undercut UN authority or shift influence in the Middle East [6] [8] [4]. Those developments highlight the Board’s potential to realign funding, diplomatic influence and governance roles in a crisis region—outcomes that have alarmed some UN advocates and European capitals [8] [2].
6. How supporters and critics frame the initiative
Supporters cast the Board as a pragmatic, donor‑led mechanism to lock in ceasefires and rebuild Gaza—and a platform for “bold” diplomatic action endorsed in UN Resolution 2803—while critics voice alarm that it centralizes power in a U.S.‑led body chaired by Trump, risks becoming a “pay‑to‑play” club, and could duplicate or displace UN functions [2] [6] [1]. Reporting across Reuters, BBC, NBC, CNBC and regional outlets shows significant divergence over the Board’s legitimacy, membership list and long‑term role, leaving its ultimate authority and impact unresolved in available reporting [4] [6] [1] [10].