Trump’s New International Cabinet: The “Board of Peace”
Ishtiaq Ahmed
Bradford: President Donald Trump has launched a new international body, controversially dubbed the “Board of Peace.” What has drawn the most attention is not so much who has joined the initiative, but rather who has conspicuously stayed away.
Britain declined to participate in the signing ceremony, while several UN Security Council members including France, Russia, China, and others have expressed deep scepticism about the Board’s purpose and legitimacy. The UK’s refusal is reportedly linked to concerns that President Vladimir Putin may be involved. Other states fear the initiative represents a first step towards sidestepping or even replacing the United Nations, an institution with which President Trump for long has had an uneasy relationship.
The Board of Peace was initially presented as a mechanism to end the two-year Israel–Palestine war in Gaza and to oversee the reconstruction of the devastated Gaza Strip. On this basis, it reportedly received preliminary approval from the UN Security Council.
However, the Board’s charter makes no explicit reference to Palestinian territory, fuelling suspicions that the organisation’s broader ambition may be to assume functions traditionally carried out by the United Nations rather than focus exclusively on Gaza.
Despite this, the framework does include a “Gaza Executive Board,” tasked with overseeing on-the-ground operations through a technocratic administrative body, according to the White House.
The Board Charter describes the Board of Peace as an international organisation mandated to conduct peace-building activities under international law. Member states would serve renewable three-year terms, while permanent seats would be available to countries contributing at least $1 billion (£740 million)-the company investment model.
Donald Trump is named both Chairman of the Board and US representative, granting him sweeping authority to appoint executive board members and to create or dissolve subsidiary bodies.
The White House has already announced seven founding members of the Executive Board, heavily weighted toward figures aligned with Trump’s political and economic worldview.
Trump has stated that Russian President Vladimir Putin has “accepted” an invitation to join the Board, suggesting Russia may contribute frozen assets to the initiative. Reuters reports that Putin is still considering the offer.
UK Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper voiced strong reservations, noting that it is difficult to speak credibly about peace while Russia has shown no tangible commitment to ending the war in Ukraine.
Meanwhile, seven Muslim-majority countries—Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Qatar—have endorsed the stated aim of securing a permanent ceasefire in Gaza, supporting reconstruction, and pursuing what they described as a “just and lasting peace.”
Read More: https://thepenpk.com/us-set-to-exit-who-sparking-global-health-concerns/
At the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, Trump reiterated that many leaders had accepted invitations to join the Board. However, it remains unclear how many countries were formally invited. Canada and the UK have yet to publicly respond, while the UAE, Bahrain, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Morocco, and Vietnam have already signed up.
The Executive Board will oversee a committee of technocrats tasked with Gaza’s temporary governance and reconstruction. The structure is widely seen as strongly aligned with Trump’s strategic design, with each member assigned a portfolio deemed “critical to Gaza’s stabilisation.”
Alongside this, a separate Gaza Executive Board will supervise all on-the-ground activities of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG).
Above these bodies sits the Board of Peace itself, envisaged as a forum of global leaders with overarching authority.
Notably, no women and no Palestinians have been announced as members of the Executive Board, although the White House has said additional appointments will be made in the coming weeks.
Key Figures on the Executive Board
Sir Tony Blair – Former UK Prime Minister (1997–2007), the only non-US founding member. His role in the 2003 Iraq War makes his appointment controversial.
Marco Rubio – US Secretary of State and a central figure in Trump’s foreign policy.
Steve Witkoff – US Special Envoy to the Middle East; a real estate magnate and close associate of Trump.
Jared Kushner – Trump’s son-in-law and a key architect of previous Middle East negotiations.
Marc Rowan – Billionaire CEO of Apollo Global Management and former contender for US Treasury Secretary.
Ajay Banga – President of the World Bank, US citizen of Indian origin, with extensive advisory experience.
Robert Gabriel – US national security adviser.
Although not on the Executive Board, Nickolay Mladenov, former UN Middle East envoy, will serve as the Board of Peace’s representative on the ground in Gaza. He will sit on the Gaza Executive Board and oversee the NCAG, a 15-member Palestinian technocratic committee led by Ali Shaath, a former Palestinian Authority deputy minister.
A Troubling Absence
Strikingly, there is no Muslim representation on the Executive Board overseeing Gaza, despite Gaza’s overwhelmingly Muslim population. This raises serious concerns that Muslim-majority states may be relegated to a symbolic or rubber-stamping role, endorsing a Trump- and US-led blueprint that many fear will ultimately be pro-Israel.
Ishtiaq Ahmed’s analysis of the so-called “Board of Peace” cuts through the noise and exposes the real fault lines beneath the rhetoric of peace-building. What makes his piece compelling is not sensationalism, but the careful way it highlights who holds power, who is excluded, and what institutional norms are being bypassed.
A central strength of the article is its focus on absence rather than presence. The refusal of the UK to participate, coupled with scepticism from France, Russia, China, and other Security Council members, immediately frames the Board not as a unifying global initiative, but as a contested and potentially destabilising construct. Ishtiaq Bhai rightly situates this within Trump’s long-standing discomfort with multilateral institutions—especially the United Nations—making the fear of a parallel or replacement structure entirely plausible.
His attention to the charter’s silence on Palestinian territory is particularly telling. For an organisation ostensibly created to resolve Gaza, this omission is not a technical oversight; it is a political signal. It suggests that Gaza may be a testing ground, not the sole concern—an entry point for redefining how international peacekeeping and post-conflict governance are controlled.
The article also powerfully interrogates the architecture of power within the Board. Trump’s dual role as Chairman and US representative, combined with his sweeping appointment powers and an Executive Board dominated by ideological allies, undermines any claim to neutrality. This is not collective global stewardship; it is centralised political command wrapped in international language.
Perhaps the most troubling element Ishtiaq Bhai identifies is the representational vacuum. No Palestinians, no Muslims, and no women on the Executive Board overseeing Gaza is not merely optics—it strikes at the legitimacy of the entire project. In a region defined by dispossession, identity, and faith, governance without representation risks becoming administration without consent.
His critique of Muslim-majority states’ participation is also nuanced rather than accusatory. By noting their absence from frontline decision-making despite their endorsement, he raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: are these states shaping the process, or merely legitimising it?
Finally, the composition of the Executive Board—figures such as Tony Blair, Jared Kushner, and major financial actors—reinforces the perception that this initiative prioritises strategic control and economic reconstruction models over political justice and self-determination.
Overall assessment:
Ishtiaq Ahmed’s article does not claim the Board of Peace will fail—but it convincingly argues that, as currently structured, it risks becoming peace without legitimacy, governance without representation, and reconstruction without justice. It is a timely warning that global peace initiatives, when detached from international norms and local voices, can deepen the very conflicts they claim to resolve.