Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’: Big stage, big claims, no mechanism for real peace
by Charbel. A. Antoun, opinion contributor/The Hill
01/30/26 1:30 PM ET.
Davos has always been a stage for grand announcements, but this year’s unveiling of Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace” was designed to eclipse them all. Leaders from dozens of states gathered under bright lights, pens poised over a glossy charter, as Trump declared the initiative a historic alternative to what he called a “broken” United Nations. The optics were cinematic. The world, however, remains engulfed in conflict — from Gaza to Ukraine to the IndoPacific — and even close U.S. partners are hesitant or quietly staying out.
The contrast is stark. What was presented as a new architecture for global stability looks far more like a personalized platform wrapped in multilateral language.
The Davos ceremony delivered symbolism, not structure. The Board of Peace lacks the basic components of a functioning international institution:
no defined legal status within existing international law
no enforcement tools or dispute resolution procedures
no accountability mechanisms
a mandate that drifts from Gaza reconstruction into a vague promise to “address global crises”
It echoes the weaknesses of the UN — slow, consensus dependent, often blocked — without offering any institutional innovation. What it adds instead is a more centralized role for Trump and a smaller, more exclusive club of states.
The Board’s design reflects a model of personalized authority rather than shared governance.
Trump is positioned as chair for life, with removal mechanisms so unrealistic they are effectively symbolic.
A tight executive circle is anchored in the U.S. presidency and Trump’s personal network.
A high financial threshold or permanent membership reinforces hierarchy, not equality.
Successful multilateral institutions work because power is dispersed, procedures are codified and no single leader “owns” the system. An institution built around one individual’s brand — any individual — cannot credibly mediate between rivals or constrain the strong.
The Board arrives at a moment when global conflict is deepening, not receding.
Gaza and the broader Israeli–Palestinian crisis
Russia’s war in Ukraine
Rising U.S.–China confrontation, including Taiwan and the South China Sea
Iran–Gulf tensions and proxy escalations
Yet the Board offers no serious road maps for ceasefires or political settlements. There are no monitoring or verification mechanisms. No proposals to address arms races, security guarantees or power sharing arrangements.
This is precisely when the world needs painstaking, technical conflict management. Instead, the Board offers choreography and slogans.
The initiative is framed as faster and more decisive than the UN. But speed without structure is not strategy.
Key European allies are hesitant or refusing to join.
There is no clarity on how the Board interacts with UN resolutions, international courts or regional organizations.
Rather than repairing multilateralism, the Board risks creating a U.S.-centric club that sidelines dissenting states and normalizes bypassing existing norms. In a fragmented global order, this could deepen fractures — one camp rallying around the Board, others doubling down on the UN, BRICS or alternative forums.
Duplicating institutions for political branding makes coordination harder, not easier.
The political capital mobilized in Davos could have produced a targeted, credible mechanism — especially on Gaza, where structured international involvement is urgently needed.
A meaningful initiative might have included:
a narrow mandate: ceasefire monitoring, reconstruction fund and guarantees tied to UN resolutions
transparent governance: rotating leadership, independent oversight and a strong role for neutral states
binding commitments: clear conditions for aid, accountability for violations and integration with existing institutions
Instead, the world was offered a stage and a brand, not a system.
The risk is that the “Board of Peace” becomes another empty label in a landscape already crowded with initiatives that change nothing on the ground.
The world is drifting toward more conflict, not less. In such an environment, institutions matter more than ever. Durable peace comes from power sharing, enforceable rules and inclusive structures — not from supranational boards built around one leader’s image or discretion.
Unless the Board of Peace evolves dramatically — clarifying its mandate, dispersing authority and integrating with international law — it will be remembered not as a turning point, but as a Davos photo op that squandered a rare chance to build something real.
Charbel A. Antoun is a Washington-based journalist and writer specializing in U.S. foreign policy, with a focus on the Middle East and North Africa. He is passionate about global affairs, conflict resolution, human rights, and democratic governance, and explores the world’s complexities through in-depth reporting and analysis.
01/30/26 1:30 PM ET.
Davos has always been a stage for grand announcements, but this year’s unveiling of Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace” was designed to eclipse them all. Leaders from dozens of states gathered under bright lights, pens poised over a glossy charter, as Trump declared the initiative a historic alternative to what he called a “broken” United Nations. The optics were cinematic. The world, however, remains engulfed in conflict — from Gaza to Ukraine to the IndoPacific — and even close U.S. partners are hesitant or quietly staying out.
The contrast is stark. What was presented as a new architecture for global stability looks far more like a personalized platform wrapped in multilateral language.
The Davos ceremony delivered symbolism, not structure. The Board of Peace lacks the basic components of a functioning international institution:
no defined legal status within existing international law
no enforcement tools or dispute resolution procedures
no accountability mechanisms
a mandate that drifts from Gaza reconstruction into a vague promise to “address global crises”
It echoes the weaknesses of the UN — slow, consensus dependent, often blocked — without offering any institutional innovation. What it adds instead is a more centralized role for Trump and a smaller, more exclusive club of states.
The Board’s design reflects a model of personalized authority rather than shared governance.
Trump is positioned as chair for life, with removal mechanisms so unrealistic they are effectively symbolic.
A tight executive circle is anchored in the U.S. presidency and Trump’s personal network.
A high financial threshold or permanent membership reinforces hierarchy, not equality.
Successful multilateral institutions work because power is dispersed, procedures are codified and no single leader “owns” the system. An institution built around one individual’s brand — any individual — cannot credibly mediate between rivals or constrain the strong.
The Board arrives at a moment when global conflict is deepening, not receding.
Gaza and the broader Israeli–Palestinian crisis
Russia’s war in Ukraine
Rising U.S.–China confrontation, including Taiwan and the South China Sea
Iran–Gulf tensions and proxy escalations
Yet the Board offers no serious road maps for ceasefires or political settlements. There are no monitoring or verification mechanisms. No proposals to address arms races, security guarantees or power sharing arrangements.
This is precisely when the world needs painstaking, technical conflict management. Instead, the Board offers choreography and slogans.
The initiative is framed as faster and more decisive than the UN. But speed without structure is not strategy.
Key European allies are hesitant or refusing to join.
There is no clarity on how the Board interacts with UN resolutions, international courts or regional organizations.
Rather than repairing multilateralism, the Board risks creating a U.S.-centric club that sidelines dissenting states and normalizes bypassing existing norms. In a fragmented global order, this could deepen fractures — one camp rallying around the Board, others doubling down on the UN, BRICS or alternative forums.
Duplicating institutions for political branding makes coordination harder, not easier.
The political capital mobilized in Davos could have produced a targeted, credible mechanism — especially on Gaza, where structured international involvement is urgently needed.
A meaningful initiative might have included:
a narrow mandate: ceasefire monitoring, reconstruction fund and guarantees tied to UN resolutions
transparent governance: rotating leadership, independent oversight and a strong role for neutral states
binding commitments: clear conditions for aid, accountability for violations and integration with existing institutions
Instead, the world was offered a stage and a brand, not a system.
The risk is that the “Board of Peace” becomes another empty label in a landscape already crowded with initiatives that change nothing on the ground.
The world is drifting toward more conflict, not less. In such an environment, institutions matter more than ever. Durable peace comes from power sharing, enforceable rules and inclusive structures — not from supranational boards built around one leader’s image or discretion.
Unless the Board of Peace evolves dramatically — clarifying its mandate, dispersing authority and integrating with international law — it will be remembered not as a turning point, but as a Davos photo op that squandered a rare chance to build something real.
Charbel A. Antoun is a Washington-based journalist and writer specializing in U.S. foreign policy, with a focus on the Middle East and North Africa. He is passionate about global affairs, conflict resolution, human rights, and democratic governance, and explores the world’s complexities through in-depth reporting and analysis.
