Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ takes shape amid global debate

Fresh details have emerged around US President Donald Trump’s proposed “Board of Peace,” an initiative he says is aimed at advancing conflict resolution and post-war reconstruction in some of the world’s most volatile regions, including Gaza, even as the plan continues to draw mixed reactions internationally.

The initiative, first unveiled earlier this month, was formally outlined on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos this week, where Trump described the board as a new mechanism to support ceasefires, oversee peace arrangements and encourage economic recovery in conflict-affected areas.

While full operational details have yet to be released, the White House says the body is intended to work alongside existing international institutions rather than replace them.

According to US officials, several countries — including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia and the United Arab Emirates — have agreed to participate or expressed interest in joining the board. Supporters argue the initiative could provide an additional diplomatic platform at a time when traditional peace processes have stalled.

However, the proposal has faced skepticism from parts of the international community. Some European governments and humanitarian organisations have questioned the board’s mandate, warning that it could duplicate or undermine the role of the United Nations and other established multilateral frameworks. Others have raised concerns over transparency, funding mechanisms and the lack of clarity on how decisions would be enforced.

From Gaza to global ambitions

The Board of Peace grew out of Trump’s broader Gaza peace proposal, which followed months of devastating conflict that left tens of thousands dead and large parts of the enclave in ruins. The original concept focused on monitoring a ceasefire, coordinating reconstruction and encouraging regional cooperation.

In recent statements, however, Trump has hinted at expanding the board’s scope beyond Gaza, suggesting it could eventually engage with other long-running conflicts. This has further fueled debate over whether the initiative represents a genuine multilateral effort or a US-led political project with limited buy-in.

Human rights groups have also urged caution, stressing that any peace mechanism must prioritise civilian protection, accountability and international law.

Despite the criticism, the White House has defended the initiative, arguing that the scale of current global crises requires new approaches and broader coalitions. Officials say further announcements on the board’s structure, leadership and funding are expected in the coming weeks.

Whether Trump’s Board of Peace can gain lasting international legitimacy — or deliver tangible outcomes on the ground — remains to be seen, as governments weigh its promises against existing diplomatic pathways.