It's Donald Trump going to make the board of peace

Checked on January 22, 2026
Disclaimer: Factually can make mistakes. Please verify important information or breaking news. Learn more.

Executive summary

Donald Trump is being presented as the inaugural chairman of the Board of Peace: the draft charter and multiple news outlets report that the U.S. president is named as the board’s first chair and that a signing ceremony took place in Davos to formalize the initiative [1] [2] [3]. The arrangement has been rolled out amid pledges of member states joining, but also clear diplomatic pushback and questions about the body’s mandate, governance and relationship with the United Nations [1] [4] [5].

1. Trump is explicitly named as the inaugural chairman — and can potentially keep the role

A copy of the draft charter seen by Reuters and reporting from other outlets indicate the U.S. president will serve as the inaugural chairman of the Board of Peace and that the charter concentrates substantial powers in the chair’s hands, including appointment and dismissal authorities and agenda control [1] [6]. U.S. officials and ABC News reporting say the chairmanship “can be held by President Trump until he resigns it,” though a future U.S. president could designate a U.S. representative instead of personally holding the post [2].

2. The board was launched publicly in Davos but faces mixed uptake from allies

President Trump hosted a signing ceremony at the World Economic Forum in Davos where a number of leaders signed the founding charter and multiple outlets described the launch as the board’s public inauguration [7] [8] [3]. The White House says dozens of invitations were issued and several countries have joined or accepted invitations, yet key allies — including France, the UK and others — have expressed reservations or declined to take part, noting overlap or conflict with U.N. processes [1] [4] [9].

3. Critics warn the charter centralizes power and could undercut the UN

Reporting from The Guardian and other analysts flag that the charter’s language and governance model appear to concentrate authority in the chair and could create a U.S.-led alternative to established multilateral institutions, raising concerns that it could undermine U.N. authority in conflict resolution and Gaza reconstruction [5] [10]. Reuters and PBS highlight structural features — including a provision that allows permanent membership in exchange for substantial contributions — that fuel criticism about unequal influence and potential circumvention of the Security Council’s role [1] [11].

4. Fundraising mechanics and membership rules intensify controversy

The charter reportedly allows members to serve three-year terms without payment but offers permanent membership in exchange for a US$1 billion contribution, a clause that several outlets report has been accepted by some countries and criticized by others as monetizing influence [1] [11] [12]. That funding model, and the board’s expanding remit beyond Gaza to “global conflicts,” have prompted unease among nations concerned about pay-to-play optics and a lack of transparent checks on the chair’s authority [10] [13].

5. Bottom line: yes — Trump is being made the board’s chairman, but legitimacy and longevity are unresolved

Multiple independent news organizations and the draft charter itself make clear Donald Trump is the inaugural chairman and that he presided over the Davos signing [1] [2] [3]. However, the board’s ultimate effectiveness, legal standing relative to the U.N., buy-in from major powers and whether future U.S. presidents will continue the personal chairmanship remain contested and unresolved in reporting to date [5] [1] [2]. The initiative exists now as a launched political instrument anchored by the U.S. presidency, but significant diplomatic frictions, governance questions and financial conditions leave its future authority and composition in flux [4] [11] [10].

Want to dive deeper?
What are the legal and U.N. implications of the Board of Peace’s charter for Security Council authority?
Which countries have publicly declined to join Trump’s Board of Peace and why?
How would the $1 billion permanent-membership rule affect decision-making and influence within the Board of Peace?