Under who's control will the money for the board of peace be held?
Executive summary
The public record does not identify a single, legally established custodian for Board of Peace funds; the charter says funding will be voluntary and that the Board “may authorize the establishment of accounts,” but it does not specify where or under whose direct legal control cash contributions would be held [1]. Multiple news outlets report the draft and reporting leave the practical control ambiguous, with anonymous sources and critics suggesting President Trump — as inaugural chairman with sweeping powers in the charter — is positioned to exert decisive influence over those funds, while the White House insists on formal controls and reputable banks [2] [3] [4].
1. What the charter actually says about money
The published charter text frames financing as “voluntary funding from Member States, other States, organizations, or other sources” and explicitly permits the Board to “authorize the establishment of accounts as necessary to carry out its mission,” while assigning the Executive Board responsibility for instituting “controls and oversight mechanisms” over budgets and disbursements [1]. That language describes mechanism and intent without naming a legal trustee, bank, or international fiduciary; it therefore creates room for interpretation but does not, on its face, place funds under the custody of an existing multilateral institution such as the World Bank or UN agencies [1] [5].
2. How reporting and anonymous sources interpret the gap
Investigative reporting has repeatedly flagged the gap between charter language and operational reality: Bloomberg and other outlets cited people familiar with the draft who said the document “appears to suggest” that Trump would control the money, a characterization that has provoked resistance from potential members and diplomatic concerns [3] [6]. Slate and The Atlantic emphasize that the charter’s silence on custodianship leaves unanswered whether the $1 billion “initiation fee” would be held by a Trump-controlled fund, a multilateral escrow, or bank accounts under Executive Board oversight [7] [5].
3. Administration claims vs. outside skepticism
The White House has defended the initiative by saying the Board “will implement the highest financial controls and oversight mechanisms” and that funds would “sit only in approved accounts at reputable banks,” language relayed by media but without public disclosure of which banks or what legal agreements would bind them [4] [2]. Skeptics point out that such assurances are not the same as contractual custodianship or independent auditing arrangements in place; critics raise the possibility that centralizing financial discretion in a chairman endowed with appointment and veto powers could create effective control even if funds are nominally in third‑party banks [4] [8].
4. Structural power that could determine practical control
Beyond banking mechanics, the charter grants the chairman sweeping authorities — sole power to appoint members, set agendas, and renew or terminate terms — and makes permanent membership contingent on a $1 billion cash contribution, which the charter treats as an exception to ordinary term limits [9] [1]. Analysts argue that institutional rules that concentrate decision-making create de facto control over allocation and disbursement regardless of where cash is parked, especially if an executive board chaired by the same individual authorizes budgets and accounts [9] [5].
5. Competing scenarios that remain consistent with reporting
Based on available sources, at least three plausible custodial models remain possible in public reporting: funds held in designated accounts at reputable commercial banks under Board authorization and oversight; funds managed through an established multilateral financial institution such as the World Bank or a trust with independent governance (not specified in the charter); or funds effectively controlled by the chairman and a small executive circle through discretionary accounts — the last being the scenario critics warn about and some anonymous sources allege [1] [2] [3].
6. Why the ambiguity matters and what to watch for next
The stakes are political and legal: donor states want legal safeguards and transparent fiduciary arrangements, and potential recipients need clarity on accountability for reconstruction funds, yet the charter’s drafting choices leave those protections underspecified, prompting diplomatic pushback and media scrutiny [6] [10]. The clearest way to resolve who controls the money will be publication of the Board’s financial agreements: named custodial banks, trust documents, escrow contracts, and the Executive Board’s formal governance procedures — documents that, as of current reporting, have not been publicly released [2] [1].