Final decisions by the Board Of Peace will be made by Trump himself.
Executive summary
The draft charter and multiple news reports make clear that the Board of Peace vests sweeping procedural and veto powers in its chairman — named in the documents as Donald J. Trump — including agenda-setting, appointment and removal of members, and the ability to approve or block decisions [1] [2] [3]. Legal experts and reporting also note that while the charter centralizes decision-making in the chairman, the board’s real-world authority would be constrained by international law, states’ consent, and practical diplomacy [4] [5].
1. What the charter actually assigns to the chairman
The publicly reported draft charter repeatedly singles out the chairman — identified as Trump in the text and accompanying invitations — giving him sole power to appoint and dismiss members, set meeting agendas, issue resolutions unilaterally, cast tie-breaking votes and exercise veto authority over many board decisions, and even to designate a successor or dissolve parts of the organisation [1] [2] [3]. The document reportedly makes the chairman a member for life and allows him to vote as chairman in the event of ties, while executive-board actions remain “subject to approval of the Chairman,” language cited across outlets [6] [3].
2. How commentators and outlets interpret that power
Major outlets have described this design as concentrating “ultimate decision‑making power” in Trump and likened the structure to an “imperial court” in which the chairman is “all‑powerful,” a characterization repeated in reporting from Bloomberg, The Guardian and others reviewing the charter [1] [7] [8]. Reuters, BBC and the New York Times likewise report that the chairman would have veto powers, authority to approve the agenda, invite members and remove them, reinforcing that the charter's internal mechanics place final control with the chairman [2] [6] [5].
3. The legal and practical limits to unilateral rule
Experts emphasize that a charter between consenting states does not magically override existing international law or UN prerogatives; new organisations must operate within legal constraints and the willingness of states to follow decisions they did not make themselves [4]. Reporting notes the board’s broader ambitions are “aspirational,” with unclear legal authority or enforcement tools beyond what member states agree to provide, and that the board’s effectiveness ultimately depends on state buy‑in and cooperation with the UN and other actors [4] [5].
4. International reaction, membership incentives and political leverage
Several states have joined or signalled support while others — notably France, Norway and Sweden — have publicly refused or expressed concern that the board could usurp the UN; the draft’s $1 billion payment for permanent seats and Washington’s courting of select allies underscore both the political and financial levers behind the project [6] [1] [5]. The White House has named specific figures for the executive board and touted broad participation, but critics argue the pay‑for‑permanent‑seat provision and the chairman’s lifetime role point to a pay‑to‑play, US‑centric institution [5] [8] [7].
5. Bottom line — who makes the final decisions?
On paper and as reported by multiple independent outlets, the charter vests final decision‑making authority in the chairman — Donald Trump — through veto and approval powers, agenda control, appointment and removal rights, and tie‑breaking votes, meaning that under the charter the chairman can determine the Board’s outcomes [1] [2] [3]. In practice, however, that formal control does not guarantee absolute implementation: the board’s actions will be limited by international law, the willingness of member states and partners (including the UN) to recognise and follow its decisions, and the political realities of diplomacy — caveats repeatedly emphasized by legal experts and reporting [4] [5].