Donald Trump’s Board of Peace met for the first time in Washington, raising questions about whether the initiative serves American foreign policy interests or Trump’s personal agenda. A Danish researcher warns the body prioritizes relationships with the president over broader diplomatic goals, as it takes on a mandate to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction and ceasefire.
The Board of Peace convened its inaugural meeting today in the American capital, marking a significant step in implementing Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace plan. The body received a two-year mandate from the UN Security Council to monitor the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel. However, the composition and structure of the board suggest motivations beyond traditional diplomacy.
Rasmus Sinding Søndergaard, a researcher specializing in American foreign policy, argues the council reflects Trump’s personal interests rather than national strategic objectives. He notes that Trump chairs the board in his individual capacity, not as president of the United States. This arrangement has no expiration date tied to his term in office.
A Personal Venture
Beyond Presidential Authority
The structure of the Board of Peace distinguishes it from conventional diplomatic initiatives. Trump’s leadership role exists independently of his presidential duties. This separation allows the body to operate outside normal governmental constraints.
Member countries share a common characteristic beyond their stated commitment to peace. They maintain strong personal relationships with Trump himself. Søndergaard emphasizes that these connections form the primary qualification for participation.
Financial Opportunities in Gaza
The researcher points to Trump’s vision for transforming Gaza into what he calls the Middle East’s Riviera. This reconstruction effort carries significant commercial potential. Søndergaard suggests that figures in Trump’s inner circle, including his son-in-law Jared Kushner, stand to benefit financially from development projects.
These economic considerations run parallel to the humanitarian mission. The board’s mandate covers both ceasefire monitoring and reconstruction oversight. This dual role creates opportunities for private investment alongside public rebuilding efforts.
Historical Context and Development
Origins of the Peace Plan
Trump announced his comprehensive Gaza strategy on September 29, 2025, during a White House press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The plan built on his previous 2020 Middle East proposals and incorporated elements from Saudi and French diplomatic initiatives. The UN Security Council endorsed the framework on November 17, 2025, giving it international legitimacy.
The first phase of the ceasefire took effect on October 10, 2025, after Hamas agreed to release hostages. The group handed over 20 living captives in exchange for 2,000 Palestinian prisoners. Hamas also committed to transferring Gaza’s administration to technocratic leaders, formalizing this agreement on October 9 in Egypt.
Implementation Challenges
Initial resistance from Hamas softened after Trump set an October 5 deadline and issued stark warnings. He threatened complete obliteration if the group failed to comply. The Israeli Defense Forces withdrew to predetermined positions, though disputes emerged about the exact boundaries of these zones.
By October 25, 2025, only 15 of 28 deceased hostages had been returned. Israel confirmed on January 23, 2026, that Hamas had finally returned the last remaining hostage, enabling transition to Phase Two. These delays highlighted the fragility of the agreement and ongoing tensions between parties.
Structure and Mandate
Institutional Framework
The White House announced on January 18, 2026, the formation of two key bodies. The National Committee for the Administration of Gaza handles transitional governance and resource mobilization. The Board of Peace provides oversight for reconstruction, governance structures, and funding mechanisms through at least 2027.
The Board of Peace includes prominent international figures such as former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. This composition aims to bring diverse expertise to Gaza’s rebuilding process. However, the body’s relationship to existing UN mechanisms remains unclear.
Operational Responsibilities
The plan mandates several critical tasks beyond ceasefire monitoring. Hamas must undergo complete disarmament, though the mechanisms for achieving this remain undefined. Palestinian security forces require training to maintain order. Gaza needs comprehensive redevelopment while excluding Hamas leadership from governance roles.
An International Stabilization Force will provide security during the transition period. Arab states contribute administrative support and financial resources. Israel maintains a security perimeter around Gaza while the reconstruction proceeds.
International Response
European Skepticism
Multiple European leaders rejected invitations to join the Board of Peace in recent weeks. They expressed concerns about undermining UN authority and established multilateral processes. This resistance contrasts sharply with the Security Council’s formal endorsement of the peace plan.
The rejections reflect broader European anxiety about American-centric governance structures. Traditional allies worry about sidelining UN and EU roles in conflict resolution. These tensions illustrate competing visions for international diplomacy and peacekeeping.
Regional Participation
Gulf states have provided backing for the initiative, offering both financial and diplomatic support. Qatar and Egypt played crucial roles in mediating between Israel and Hamas during ceasefire negotiations. Their continued involvement remains essential for implementation success.
Key actors in the process include Trump’s envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, Israeli officials Netanyahu and Ron Dermer, and Hamas representative Khalil al-Hayya. Qatar’s Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman has facilitated crucial communications between parties. This network of relationships shapes the peace process trajectory.
Obstacles and Uncertainties
Hamas Compliance Questions
Hamas partially fulfilled Phase One commitments, including hostage releases. However, the group rejects complete disarmament and leadership exclusion from Gaza’s future governance. Satellite imagery disputes have emerged regarding Israeli troop positions, with questions about whether withdrawal lines moved deeper into Gaza territory than agreed.
The Board of Peace mandate lacks clarity on several critical issues. It does not specify how the body will confront Hamas resistance or enforce disarmament. Requirements for Palestinian Authority reforms remain vague. The post-2027 transition plan has not been articulated.
Humanitarian Concerns
Gaza faces massive reconstruction needs, with over 50 million tonnes of debris requiring removal. Initial plan proposals included forced displacement of approximately two million Palestinians, though these elements were later dropped. The scope and scale of rebuilding efforts present unprecedented logistical challenges.
Trump reiterated disarmament ultimatums at the Davos gathering on January 21, 2026. His statements emphasized zero tolerance for armed resistance in Gaza. These positions conflict with Hamas’s stated intentions to maintain some military capacity.
Expanded Ambitions
Beyond Gaza
Reports indicate Trump has unilaterally broadened the Board of Peace’s scope beyond its original Gaza mandate. The body may address other global conflicts, raising questions about its appropriate role. This expansion occurs without clear consultation with international partners or UN bodies.
Such mission creep troubles analysts who see risks in ad hoc conflict resolution mechanisms. Traditional multilateral institutions developed procedures and safeguards over decades. Bypassing these structures could undermine their authority and effectiveness in future crises.
Long-Term Viability
The Board of Peace operates with a two-year mandate that could extend indefinitely. Its success depends on resolving fundamental questions about Gaza’s political future. The Palestinian Authority remains sidelined pending unspecified reforms, creating a governance vacuum.
Sources disagree on implementation progress. Some characterize Hamas as acting in good faith, while others describe next steps as murky. Hamas influence persists in northern Gaza despite ceasefire agreements. No consensus exists on whether the International Stabilization Force can effectively counter what analysts call resurgent terror threats.
The initiative’s ultimate success will depend on reconciling competing interests and establishing legitimate governance structures. Whether it represents genuine peacemaking or serves narrower personal objectives remains an open question as implementation proceeds.
Sources and References
DR: Forsker: Fredsråd skal ikke forfølge USA’s interesser – kun Trumps
