What Is Trump’s “Board of Peace”? A Clear Explainer on the Davos Launch

At the 2026 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, President Donald Trump formally rolled out a new international initiative he calls the “Board of Peace.”The White House says the body is designed to help oversee implementation of a Gaza ceasefire plan and coordinate reconstruction—and potentially expand into a broader conflict-resolution club.

The quick definition

The Board of Peace is being pitched as a “U.S.-backed, member-country body” that would:

1. Provide oversight and coordination around Gaza’s postwar transition and rebuilding (at least initially).

2. Potentially expand to other global conflicts, which is where concerns about the United Nations come in.

Where it came from

The administration ties the Board directly to Trump’s broader Gaza plan, and points to U.N. Security Council Resolution 2803 (2025), which (per the White House and U.N. materials) endorsed the plan and welcomed the Board’s establishment. That matters because it gives the project some international scaffolding—while still leaving major questions about authority, governance, and enforcement.

How it’s supposed to work (as described so far)

Public details remain incomplete. AP reports Trump provided “few specifics” about the Board’s mandate and mechanics at the Davos rollout. Still, multiple reports describe a structure with:

1. A chairman role for Trump, and an executive group involving senior U.S. figures and well-known international political names.

2. Member-country participation that can be time-limited, with a pathway to “permanent” status via funding contributions.

Reuters has reported that countries can join for three-year terms or gain permanent status by paying $1 billion, and that a draft charter described Trump as chairing the body.

Who’s joining—and who’s not

Reuters says roughly 35 countries have agreed to join so far, including several Middle East partners (such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE) and a mix of other governments spanning regions and political alignments. But the absences are also the story: AP reports that several major U.S. allies did not participate in the Davos rollout and expressed concern the project could undermine the U.N. Reuters and other coverage note Norway, Sweden, and France among those declining or objecting, with some governments citing legal/constitutional constraints or incompatibility with existing international commitments.

Why critics say it’s controversial

There are three big friction points:

1) Is this competing with the U.N.?

• Trump has suggested the Board could rival or partially replace U.N. functions, while critics argue it’s an attempt to build a parallel architecture for global conflict management. ([AP News][1])

2) Legitimacy and governance

• Skeptics point to unclear rules: how decisions are made, how disputes are resolved, and what—if anything—compels compliance. AP emphasizes that, even at launch, the practical mandate remained murky.

3) Money and membership

• The reported $1 billion “permanent membership” idea has drawn criticism as pay-to-play diplomacy.

  (And yes, the branding became part of the argument too: the Guardian reported observers noted the Board’s logo resembles the U.N. emblem—fueling the “replacement” narrative.)

  The key unanswered questions to watch

If you’re covering this as a continuing story, here are the most “watchable” unknowns:

• Legal authority: What is the Board’s formal status—treaty-based, U.N.-linked, or essentially a coalition-of-the-willing?

• Scope creep:Does it remain Gaza-focused, or expand into a standing body for multiple conflicts?

• Operational details: How does it interface with other pieces mentioned in U.N. discussions (including security arrangements), and who actually implements decisions?

• Membership reality vs. rhetoric: How many countries truly commit resources—money, diplomacy, reconstruction capacity—versus offering symbolic endorsement?

• Great-power positioning: Reuters reporting indicates Russia is weighing participation and has floated funding ideas tied to frozen assets—another potential flashpoint.