Trump’s “Board of Peace”: Gaza Mandate or Global Ambitions?

Questions have emerged about the scope and authority of the newly formed “Board of Peace” announced by US President Donald Trump. Initially described as overseeing Gaza’s postwar transition, a leaked charter suggests the organization could have much broader international ambitions.

The White House confirmed the creation of the Board on January 16 as part of Trump’s 20-point Gaza plan. The executive board tasked with implementing the project includes several high-profile figures: Secretary of State Marco Rubio, special Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, former advisor Jared Kushner, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, World Bank President Ajay Banga, and business executive Marc Rowan.

According to official White House statements, the Board will coordinate funding, reconstruction, and stabilization efforts in Gaza, with specific structures including a Gaza executive board and a stabilization force to aid with security during the transition period.

However, a document published by the Times of Israel, reportedly attached to invitation letters sent to world leaders, describes the Board as an “international organization” seeking to promote stability and peace in “areas affected or threatened by conflict” – a much broader mandate than just Gaza.

The charter contains unusual provisions, including term limits of three years for members – except for nations contributing over $1 billion in the first year. Trump has described the initiative as a “bold new approach to resolving global conflicts,” with invitation letters sent to leaders including Argentina’s Javier Milei and Paraguay’s Santiago Peña suggesting a scope beyond Gaza.

A senior official told the Associated Press that the Board’s expanded role remains “aspirational” but added that Trump’s inner circle believes it is possible, citing frustrations with the United Nations. Another official indicated that the draft charter may still undergo revisions.

The UN Security Council did address the Board of Peace in November 2025 through Resolution 2803, endorsing Trump’s plan specifically for Gaza. This resolution authorizes the Board to coordinate reconstruction, oversee a transitional administration, and coordinate humanitarian aid delivery in Gaza. It also authorizes an International Stabilization Force operating under the Board’s guidance.

Crucially, the UN mandate explicitly limits the Board’s authority to Gaza and extends only until December 31, 2027, requiring progress reports to the Security Council every six months.

Legal experts have raised questions about the Board’s broader aspirations. Professor Aurel Sari of the University of Exeter noted that while states can create new international organizations, these must “respect existing international law and legal commitments,” including the UN framework. He highlighted the unprecedented concentration of power in the chair position, with Trump having veto authority over most Board decisions.

The charter also requires only three states to join for the Board to become active, which Sari described as “a remarkably small number” for an organization seeking international legal personality with extensive immunities and privileges.

Professor Marko Milanović from the University of Reading characterized the expanded Board concept as “a very unusual entity,” emphasizing that “as a legal matter, the board would have no powers that do not emanate from state consent and any Security Council mandate.” Under UN rules, Security Council obligations would legally override any conflicting international agreements.

While the Board’s formal legal authority may be limited, analysts suggest its political impact could be significant. Henrique Burnay, a consultant on European affairs, warned that the leaked charter reflects a broader shift away from multilateral institutions that could be “devastating,” with its influence ultimately depending on which nations join and how it operates in practice.

Richard Gowan from the International Crisis Group noted that while the Board could become a multilateral agreement if states signed its charter, interpreting the UN’s original Gaza mandate as approval for a global peace body would be “unprecedented” in international relations.