Trump's 'Board of Peace' to Monitor the UN? What's Really at Stake

Forty-five nations gathered in Washington, but it was one offhand comment that stole the show. Trump's promise that his new Board of Peace would be "looking over" the UN wasn't just diplomatic theater—it was a direct challenge to seven decades of international order.

The Grand Launch

The inaugural Board of Peace meeting at the U.S. Institute of Peace brought together 16 heads of state and representatives from 45 countries. The optics were impressive: Indonesia and Vietnam representing Southeast Asia's eager middle powers, alongside established allies and fence-sitters alike.

Trump's headline achievement? Securing $17 billion for Gaza reconstruction, with Japan set to host the next fundraising round. But it was his casual mention of "looking over" the UN that revealed the board's true ambition.

Two Visions of Global Governance

The contrast couldn't be starker. On one side sits the UN—multilateral, consensus-driven, often frustratingly slow. On the other, Trump's Board of Peace promises action, efficiency, and American leadership.

For UN supporters, this feels like déjà vu. Trump's first presidency was marked by withdrawal from international agreements and skepticism toward multilateral institutions. His new board looks like an attempt to build a parallel system—one where America sets the agenda.

For participating nations, the calculus is different. Countries like Indonesia and Vietnam have long felt marginalized in UN decision-making, where Security Council powers hold veto rights. The Board of Peace offers them a seat at a smaller, potentially more influential table.

The Money Trail

That $17 billion for Gaza isn't just humanitarian aid—it's a statement of intent. By positioning his board as the coordinator of reconstruction efforts, Trump is essentially bypassing traditional UN agencies and creating an alternative aid architecture.

This matters because international aid has always been about more than money. It's about influence, relationships, and the soft power that comes with being seen as a problem-solver. If the Board of Peace can deliver where the UN has struggled, it gains legitimacy.

The Geopolitical Gamble

Trump's timing is strategic. The UN faces criticism over its handling of multiple crises—Ukraine, Gaza, climate change. Public confidence in multilateral institutions is shaky. Enter the Board of Peace, promising decisive action and measurable results.

But there's a risk. International cooperation requires trust, and trust requires predictability. Trump's "America First" approach and history of sudden policy reversals make some allies nervous. Will this board survive beyond his presidency?