Donald Trump is building what he calls a "Board of Peace" — initially framed as a mechanism to oversee reconstruction in Gaza, but now positioning itself as something far larger: a parallel structure for managing global conflicts.
The shift is visible in the language. When Trump first announced the board as part of a Gaza ceasefire framework, it sounded narrowly focused: governance capacity-building, regional relations, reconstruction. But letters sent to world leaders like Argentine President Javier Milei reveal a different ambition. The board, according to these communications, aims to "solidify Peace in the Middle East" and "embark on a bold new approach to resolving Global Conflict."
A charter circulating among diplomatic circles describes 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." Notice what's missing: any specific mention of Gaza. One diplomat, speaking anonymously, called it a "'Trump United Nations' that ignores the fundamentals of the UN charter."
We're a new kind of news feed.
Regular news is designed to drain you. We're a non-profit built to restore you. Every story we publish is scored for impact, progress, and hope.
Start Your News DetoxThe Trump administration acknowledges the expanded role remains "aspirational" for now, but officials believe it's achievable given widespread frustration with the UN's effectiveness. They're clear on one point: the board isn't intended to replace the United Nations, just to operate alongside it.
The initial membership reads as a who's-who of Middle East stakeholders and Trump allies: former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, representatives from Turkey, Qatar, the UAE, and Israel. But the composition immediately drew criticism. Palestinian voices are absent from the table — a significant omission for a board ostensibly focused on the region's most volatile conflict. The absence sparked outrage across the Middle East.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu added another layer of complexity by opposing even the Gaza-focused version of the board, stating its composition "was not coordinated with Israel and runs contrary to its policy."
What's emerging is a pattern familiar in international diplomacy: an initiative that starts with one mandate quietly expands toward another. Whether this board gains traction as a serious conflict-resolution body or remains a symbolic gesture depends on whether its members can move beyond the diplomatic friction already evident in its founding.
