Trump’s “Board of Peace” Seeks Global Backing with Billion-Dollar Membership

Former President Donald Trump has invited at least eight additional countries to join a new international initiative called the “Board of Peace.” The stated goal of this board is to oversee the next steps for Gaza, including reconstruction and the disarmament of Hamas. This move represents an attempt to translate a controversial political vision into a formal, donor-backed international body.

A Price Tag for Permanent Influence

A key detail of the plan is the financial requirement for a permanent seat. According to reports, a contribution of $1 billion secures a country permanent membership on the board. This model mirrors other international funding coalitions but attaches a direct and high price to a seat at the table. So far, Hungary and Vietnam have publicly accepted invitations to join. Their participation suggests the board is seeking a mix of geopolitical allies and economically growing nations beyond traditional Middle East peace process players.

The involvement of India, among other invited nations, points to a strategy of building a broad, alternative coalition. India maintains complex relationships in the Middle East and its potential participation would lend significant geopolitical weight. The board’s structure, offering permanent status for major donors, aims to quickly amass a substantial reconstruction fund while granting influential donors direct oversight of its deployment in Gaza.

Goals: Reconstruction and Disarmament

The board has outlined two primary and interconnected objectives. The first is facilitating the massive reconstruction of the Gaza Strip, following the extensive damage from the recent conflict. The second, and more politically charged goal, is overseeing the disarmament of Hamas. Linking these two aims creates a condition where reconstruction efforts could be tied to security outcomes, a approach that will likely generate debate among potential donor nations and regional actors.

This initiative emerges outside the framework of established international bodies typically involved in such processes, such as the United Nations. By creating a new board, the architects are seeking a structure where influence is explicitly tied to financial contribution, potentially allowing donor countries to wield direct control over policy and fund allocation without the consensus rules of larger multinational organizations.

Unanswered Questions and Global Reaction

The announcement raises immediate questions about the board’s authority and legitimacy. It is unclear what, if any, coordination exists with the current Israeli government, the Palestinian Authority, or other Arab states central to any Gaza solution. Furthermore, the legal and practical mechanism for enforcing the disarmament of Hamas remains unspecified. The condition of a billion-dollar entry fee may also limit participation to a small group of wealthy nations, shaping the board’s priorities.

Global reaction is still developing. The acceptance by Hungary and Vietnam indicates some nations are willing to engage with this parallel diplomatic track. However, key European allies and major Arab nations have not yet signaled their positions. The success of the board will depend heavily on whether it can attract participation from nations with both the financial means and the regional credibility to implement its ambitious and sensitive goals. For investors, this signals a potential new channel for large-scale infrastructure and development contracts, but one entangled with high geopolitical risk and an untested governance model.