Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ proposal sparks global alarm over Gaza governance-for-sale

KARACHI: A controversial proposal by US President Donald Trump to establish a so-called “Board of Peace” to oversee Gaza’s governance and reconstruction has triggered widespread concern, with critics warning that the plan effectively commercialises peace and sidelines established international mechanisms.
According to reports by Bloomberg and The Atlantic, countries seeking permanent membership on the proposed board would be required to pay $1 billion in cash within the first year, a condition that would exempt them from the board’s otherwise limited three-year term. Pakistan and at least five other countries have reportedly received invitations to join the body.
A draft charter cited by the reports reveals that Trump would serve as the board’s inaugural chairman, retaining sweeping powers to approve member states and ratify all decisions. While member countries would be allowed to vote, the chairman would hold final authority, raising serious questions about transparency, accountability, and collective decision-making.
The charter states that the board will become operational once three countries agree to its terms. It also asserts that the initiative will “depart from approaches and institutions that have too often failed,” language widely interpreted as a pointed dismissal of the United Nations’ role in international peace-building. Notably, the draft makes no explicit reference to the Gaza Strip, despite the board being promoted as a mechanism to oversee its future.
What the $1 billion membership fee would fund remains unclear. The Atlantic reported that the draft charter does not specify how the money would be used, stating only that board expenses would be covered through “voluntary funding from Member States, other States, organizations, or other sources.” The lack of financial clarity has fuelled criticism that the proposal risks becoming an unaccountable, pay-to-play structure.
The board is intended to oversee the implementation of Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace plan, announced following a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas after two years of devastating conflict. Trump recently declared that Phase Two of the plan had begun, requiring Hamas to disarm and Israel to withdraw its forces from Gaza-conditions that remain highly contentious and fragile on the ground.
Trump has also announced a high-profile and politically sensitive lineup for the board, including US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, special envoy Steve Witkoff, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, former UK prime minister Tony Blair, World Bank President Ajay Banga, and billionaire investors Robert Gabriel and Marc Rowan. The inclusion of private investors alongside state officials has intensified fears of blurred lines between humanitarian objectives and financial or geopolitical interests.
The White House has confirmed that invitations were also sent to several heads of state. Argentine President Javier Milei publicly accepted the invitation, calling it an “honour” to join as a founding member. Egypt and Turkey have confirmed receipt of invitations sent to Presidents Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, respectively.
Additional invitations were reportedly extended to officials and political figures from Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bulgaria, the Netherlands, and Cyprus, including UN Middle East peace envoy Sigrid Kaag-a move that has further complicated perceptions of how the new body would coexist with existing UN-led processes.
Diplomatic observers warn that the proposal risks undermining international law and established multilateral frameworks by concentrating power in a single office and linking influence directly to financial contributions. Human rights advocates argue that Gaza’s future cannot be decided through financial thresholds or elite boards detached from the realities faced by millions of Palestinians.
As invitations circulate and reactions mount, the proposed “Board of Peace” has already ignited a fierce debate: whether it represents an innovative break from failed diplomacy, or a dangerous precedent in which peace, governance, and reconstruction are placed on the auction block.