Trump’s Board of Peace: What is really on his mind?
The World Economic Forum meeting in Davos drew unusual attention this season to US President Donald Trump’s proposed “Board of Peace” earlier this week. The announcement made by the US President at a sideline event on Thursday raised eyebrows across the world. Supporters described the move as bold, while critics viewed it as arrogant, unnecessary and even dangerous. The absence of several major Western democracies from the initiative only added to the suspicion surrounding it. So, what is really going on in Trump’s mind? Is this an honest attempt to bring peace to Gaza, where the United Nations has failed so far? Or is it an effort to build a parallel global body, tightly controlled by the United States and by Trump himself?
Political commentators say to understand the Board of Peace, one must first understand what Trump has been speaking about the United Nations. Trump has long believed that the United Nations is ineffective, biased against the US, and dominated by empty talk. He has repeatedly mocked it as a place for speeches rather than solutions. In his eyes, global institutions created after World War II no longer serve American interests. America’s new National Security Strategy openly questions the so‑called “rules‑based international order,” as reported by the international media. Trump believes that the United Nations restricts America’s freedom to act. Perhaps he is uncomfortable with veto powers that block US objectives, legal limits on the use of military force, and human rights mechanisms that question the actions of US allies. Political analysts suggest that the idea of a Board of Peace fits well into this thinking. It means fewer rules, fewer voices, and greater control in the hands of the US.
Unlike the UN, where countries are represented through established institutions, the Board of Peace is centred on heads of state. Trump plans to chair it personally and, according to leaked details of its charter, as reported by the international media, would remain chairman for life, even after leaving office. This is not a minor point. It shows that the Board is not only about maintaining peace, but also about concentrating personal authority. Under this structure, Trump would have the power to invite or exclude countries, set up or shut down bodies under the Board, and even choose his successor. Membership is also expected to come at a high cost. Media reports suggest that permanent membership of the Board could cost up to $1 billion. This changes the nature of the organisation. Instead of looking like a collective security body, it begins to resemble a pay-to-play club where money decides influence.
Trump has also given mixed messages about the role of the Board. At times, he says it will work alongside the United Nations. At other times, it suggests that it could replace the UN altogether. Many commentators say the Board appears like a smaller version of the UN Security Council, but with one major difference. There is no veto system, no balance of power, and no permanent checks on the chairman’s authority.
In effect, it is believed that Trump alone would hold veto-like power. This, perhaps, could be one of the major reasons that several European countries chose to stay away. For example, France has been very outright warning that the Board could weaken the UN. Britain has also expressed concern that authoritarian leaders may be given an important role in a body that claims to promote peace. Canada is already off the table. The reasoning is no rocket science and is simple. If powerful countries start creating alternative global forums whenever existing institutions frustrate them, the entire system of international cooperation could collapse.
The countries that attended the signing ceremony came from diverse regions: Latin America, West and South Asia, Central Asia, and Eastern Europe. Many share one thing in common: transactional relationships with the US. For them, joining the Board of Peace is not about global ideals. It is about access to Washington, to funding, to political backing, and to Trump himself.
In a world where American power is once again being used bluntly, that might be Venezuela or Iran, proximity to Washington clearly matters. Those closer to the US, politically or strategically, stand to gain more influence and protection.
India, Russia and China have also been invited to join the Board, but all three countries are moving cautiously. Even though there may be several possible advantages in engaging with such a forum, not until every aspect is showcased transparently. At the same time, they are aware of the risks involved in legitimising a body that is firmly under American control and could be used to advance Washington’s interests at their expense. In the initial stage, the Board of Peace was introduced as a limited arrangement linked to post-war governance and reconstruction in Gaza. It was meant to function under a UN Security Council resolution. This role was not much criticised, and several countries were ready to support it. It then received some international acceptance. However, US President Trump soon expanded the idea. The media reports suggest that the Board is now being presented as a global body that aims to promote peace and stability in conflict zones around the world.
This steady expansion of its mandate has raised alarm in many capitals. The composition of its executive committee, filled with Trump loyalists, business figures, and political allies, has only strengthened the perception that the initiative so far seems less about genuine multilateral diplomacy and more about centralised control and decision-making from Washington.
The Board of Peace, therefore, cannot be viewed in isolation. Several articles appearing in the foreign media from credible journalists and organisations suggest that it is part of a larger shift in US foreign policy thinking. America appears less interested in defending democracy abroad, promoting human rights, or strengthening global institutions. Instead, it is moving towards a model that prioritises nation-state sovereignty, hard power, and direct leader-to-leader deals, with little patience for established international norms.
India rightly abstained from the signing ceremony. Political observers feel that New Delhi should value strategic autonomy but not go away from a rules‑based order. India also wants to have reforms in the UN and has been advocating strongly for it, but it will be too early for India to even think of joining the US peace board, as it could tie India to Trump’s US‑centric framework. It could also complicate India’s relations with Europe and other countries.
One hopes that the Board of Peace doesn’t bring further global division. The biggest danger of the Board of Peace is fragmentation. If global governance becomes a patchwork of competing forums or alliances, conflict resolution will become harder, not easier. A body that is so closely linked to one individual runs the risk of losing relevance once that individual steps away from power.
The world does not need more international institutions; it needs better and more effective ones. The United Nations, especially the Security Council, certainly requires reform. However, bypassing the UN altogether is only going to create a dangerous precedent where more chaos will be witnessed. If the Board of Peace is to function, its role must be clearly defined, its funding must be transparent, and its actions must be in line with the existing international law. At present, the structure of the Board reflects an instinct to dominate rather than to negotiate. Whether it ends up as a mere footnote in history or becomes a turning point in global governance will depend largely on how other nations respond.
Surinder Singh Oberoi,
National Editor Greater Kashmir
