Oxymoron or Innovation? Trump’s Board of Peace

On January 22, 2025, Trump announced his new institution, the Board of Peace, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, signing its founding charter in front of global political elites. Trump claimed the board was established as a mechanism to secure a ceasefire in Gaza, with ambitions aimed toward peacekeeping. However, the American president has now stated that he intends for the board to reach far beyond this, becoming “one of the most consequential bodies ever created in the history of the world”. With Trump as chairman and life membership reportedly purchasable for $1 billion, reactions from the remainder of the world have been highly polarised. Thirty-five countries including Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Argentina and Indonesia have already bought their way into the institution, whilst other global powers, like the UK, France, China and Russia, have either publicly declined Trump’s offer, or remained on the fence. 

Creation of the Board of Peace reflects a growing frustration towards existing international institutions deemed slow to act and ineffective. Although the board's inception was endorsed by the United Nations Security Council as part of Trump's Gaza peace plan, the UN has made it clear that their engagement with the board will remain solely within the context of the Palestine-Israel conflict. The President has said that the UN has “tremendous potential” and that if ‘combined’ with his new Board, they will together be able to present something “very, very unique for the world.”

Although Trump claims to be in support of working alongside pre-existing institutions such as the UN, the President has a long history of disparaging such organisations, particularly those that work on a multilateral basis. Some speculate that the true reason behind the board's fruition is Trump’s frustration at being bound by the decision paralysis of other nations; he is only willing to work internationally and cooperate if policy is on his terms, under his singular guidance. So how co-operative will the Board of Peace really be?

Whilst the world does need faster, more adaptive, conflict resolution, the tools to do so must be transparent, lawful, and diplomatic, so as to ensure accountability and reasonable levels of authority.

Whilst the institution may indeed act faster than others due to reduced polarisation, we must ask if this omission of diplomacy is worth it. The answer can be found in the fact that the board is not grounded in international law, treaty obligations, or democratic oversight. It has no obligations to act in accordance with multifaceted legal frameworks and thus can bypass what have historically proven to be important obstacles preventing countries acting rashly and purely in self-interest, aiding in peacekeeping efforts. With the Board headed by such a polarising figure, with a plethora of controversial beliefs and an erratic leadership style, some see the Board as a danger to peace rather than a guardian. While mediation relies on trust, rationality, and procedural fairness, none of these are guaranteed under a privately initiated body centred around the desires of a single individual. 

The structure of a board that centres Trump suggests more than just a desire for rapid resolutions, and risks becoming a tool to legitimise the President's desires. Bringing dozens of states under the banner of Trump’s control, the Board has the power to legitimise actions that would typically lack a legal consensus.

Concerns also arise from how access to the Board is gained. There is a $1 billion fee to become a life member; a system in which you pay to enter is famously not a characteristic of diplomacy. Gatekeeping access to the board to only wealthy nations privileges only a select few and alienates developing countries who are already the most vulnerable on the international stage, and ostracises them from the decision making process entirely. This system lacks accountability and over-represents elites, potentially skewing the Board’s priorities away from humanitarian intervention and toward elitist political and economic interests.

So is the Board cause for concern or celebration? Whilst the world does need faster, more adaptive, conflict resolution, the tools to do so must be transparent, lawful, and diplomatic, so as to ensure accountability and reasonable levels of authority. An international body that operates without legal foundations remains vulnerable to politicisation and abuse of power. 

Global leaders remain cautious in their approach to Trump’s newly unveiled institution, seeing as it is too early to tell the true intentions of the institution. The previously outlined criticisms could be merely pessimistic, but given historic track records of bothering the figureheads of the Board and historical circumstances in which too much power was provided to single authorities, they are not without reason. 

As such, Trump’s Board of Peace, at present, could be understood as an oxymoron. It promotes peace, and yet with such direct power given to a single figurehead, the Board could potentially prove a vehicle for personalised power. Only time will tell the true direction of the Board, but as the state of international welfare becomes poorer and poorer, we can only hope that the Board provides exactly what it outlines  – peace. 

Image:rawpixel.com