Femi Ashekun/
President Donald Trump’s proposed “Board of Peace” is facing growing international resistance, with diplomats and governments warning that the initiative appears designed to assume a global mandate and potentially rival or replace the United Nations, rather than merely address the Gaza crisis it is publicly framed around.
The concern has emerged alongside revelations that countries seeking permanent membership of the board would be required to pay $1 billion, according to a draft charter obtained by Bloomberg.
Sources familiar with the document say the charter grants Trump sweeping personal authority, including effective control over the board’s finances, agenda and membership structure.
Diplomats say it is the combination of centralised control and an open-ended global remit that has triggered alarm across capitals.
Several countries, including key US allies, believe the board is being positioned to evolve beyond Gaza into a standing international peace and governance body, operating outside existing multilateral frameworks and unencumbered by UN oversight.
One senior official described the proposal as “a parallel global architecture built around one man”.
According to sources, multiple nations are now coordinating a collective pushback, arguing that the board’s structure is incompatible with established norms of multilateral diplomacy and risks fragmenting international conflict-resolution mechanisms at a time of heightened global instability.
The draft charter reportedly states that only countries making the $1 billion contribution would qualify for permanent status, while Trump would serve as chair, with decisive influence over how funds are deployed.
Diplomats say this raises profound concerns about transparency, accountability and the monetisation of global influence.
Israel has already rejected the proposal, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu objecting both to the financial terms and to the governance model.
Israeli officials are said to be particularly uneasy about the lack of coordination and the implications for existing diplomatic tracks on Gaza and regional security.
Opposition has also surfaced in Europe.
Former British prime minister, Tony Blair, whose name has been associated with advisory discussions around the board, has publicly distanced himself from the $1 billion membership requirement, reflecting wider discomfort among Western governments.
While the board is marketed by Trump as a bold mechanism to secure peace, stability and reconstruction funding, critics argue that it effectively creates a pay-to-play system for global decision-making, privileging wealthy states and consolidating authority in ways fundamentally at odds with UN principles.
The White House has attempted to downplay the backlash, insisting the financial requirement applies only to countries seeking long-term, permanent membership and stressing that participation would be voluntary.
US officials have framed the initiative as complementary to existing institutions rather than a replacement for them.
However, diplomatic sources say those assurances are failing to calm concerns, particularly as the charter leaves the board’s future scope deliberately broad.
Several governments fear that once established, the body could gradually encroach on roles traditionally reserved for the UN, from mediation and peacekeeping oversight to post-conflict reconstruction coordination.
Despite Trump’s public promotion of the Board of Peace as a flagship foreign policy initiative, the absence of support from key regional and global players now raises serious questions about its viability.
For many countries, the issue is no longer just the $1 billion price tag, but the prospect of a new global power centre emerging outside the UN system.
0






