Trump's Board of Peace: Not an Anti-UN
Never have I seen the blueprints of an International Organisation so reminiscent of a feudal kingdom.
If it weren’t so tragically linked to one of the worst genocides in my lifetime, it would almost be funny what Trump is doing with his “Board of Peace.” Last week, he seemed to have finished the envisioned charter and sent it out over the weekend to dozens of governments around the world; he even invited Vladimir Putin to join the board.
While some have speculated that he might be building a United Nations rival organisation, what he is really doing is much more Trumpian. He is working on creating his own, highly personalized International Organization (IO)—one designed to concentrate authority in his hands and persist beyond his presidency of the USA. Let’s look at what this monstrosity is envisioned to be.
A Personalized IO
The whole endeavour rests on UN Security Council Resolution 2803, adopted in November 2025, which “welcomes” the establishment of the Board of Peace (BOP) as a transitional administration with international legal personality. This, in my view, is key: it grants the BoP legitimacy under the UN Charter. The idea expressed in UNSCR 2803 is that the BoP deals with Gaza, but we see clearly how Trump is going far beyond that.
In fact, the BoP Charter doesn’t mention Gaza even once. Instead, it establishes the entire organisation basically as a personal little kingdom, with the Chairman as its supreme ruler. It even mentions Donald J. Trump explicitly as the first Chairman. What nonsense. International organizations normally designate offices that will be filled according to procedures, or with personnel ex officio (e.g., being the president of a central bank makes a member state also a board member of the Bank for International Settlements, etc.), not private individuals. Here, however, the charter embeds Trump by name as the organization’s permanent linchpin.
The actual board itself is currently being built as a political body, with membership restricted to states—except for the position of Chairman, who can really be anyone with a pulse. Trump is inviting countries to join the organisation by signing and ratifying the charter, and then either their head of state or government will sit on the board. However, membership is time-limited to three years, unless a state contributes over one billion dollars within the first year (clearly intended as a scheme to make interested parties pay up at the very beginning and fill up the BoP coffers). You can be sure that Trump will offer renewal of membership, but will fix a big price tag on that one. So membership in the BoP will be a very expensive pay-to-play scheme. Oh, and it goes without saying that the three-year membership rule does not apply to the Chairman. That position is for life (and for free).
Limitless Powers to the Chairman
Although the charter stipulates that the BoP would work by a one-country-one-vote rule and majority decision, in fact, the powers of the Chairman at any time reign supreme. He has sole discretion over who gets invited to join the BoP and who must stay out. He has a veto over all board decisions, and he alone gets to create sub-organs of the organisation.
Beneath the political board sits the Executive Board, also appointed by Trump. Its founding members include, at the moment, Marco Rubio, Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, and Tony Blair. This board will probably function analogously to a UN Secretariat, managing day-to-day operations. This board, too, remains fully subordinate to the Chairman’s will. Agenda-setting power rests with the Executive Board but requires Trump’s approval, ensuring that no discussion or decision occurs without his consent.
Member states purchasing permanent seats in the organization and later injecting probably even more money through donations transform the BoP into an international wallet for Trump. The charter authorizes the BoP to establish accounts, hold assets, and receive funds without meaningful external oversight or even a dispute resolution mechanism (the charter states that the Chairman has ultimate decision-making power in case of disputes. Ha!). Combined with its international legal personality, this creates a vehicle for large-scale capital aggregation and investment insulated from national laws.
Succession rules further entrench Trump’s power. Replacement of the Chairman may occur only through voluntary resignation or incapacity, as determined unanimously by the (political) board. If unanimity cannot be reached, no succession occurs. Trump may personally designate his successor, who can be anyone, which means the BoP might well become a tool for his dynasty-building. Trump could simply appoint one of his kids as his successor.
The charter also contains an unprecedented “kill switch.” In addition to the Chairman having the power to dissolve the BoP at will, unless renewed every odd-numbered year by him, the organization automatically dissolves. This is really an extraordinary setup, showing that Trump wants a strong international organisation, but not one that he could not eliminate in case something goes wrong.
Legal Status and Immunities
Once ratified by three states, the charter acquires treaty status under international law and, in conjunction with UNSCR 2803, the BoP even becomes a United Nations-approved international organisation. Its officers and subsidiaries thereby gain diplomatic immunity and extraterritorial privileges. Like the UN, it will operate outside host-state jurisdiction, shielding its leadership—including Trump—from prosecution or domestic legal constraints.
A future host state agreement will likely mirror UN headquarters arrangements, preventing local authorities from entering BoP premises. Such immunity transforms the organization into a legally autonomous zone—a feature which, in theory, would give Trump’s BoP the ability to acquire land and then build establishments on it outside national laws (much like embassies are not part of the territory they rest on). One can easily see how this must appeal to a property developer and businessman like Trump. The possibilities for unregulated international business are tremendous.
And Gaza?
Where does Gaza feature in this whole plan, you might ask. Good question. It doesn’t.
Through Trump’s executive decision-making power (as granted by the charter), the nascent BoP has created a third board to deal with Gaza separately, meaning not as part of the BoP Charter setup itself. Trump announced last weekend that a “Gaza Executive Board” shall be tasked with liaising with the newly formed “National Committee for the Administration of Gaza” (NCAG). This Palestinian technocratic body, created on January 16, is designed to administer Gaza post-conflict. Yet it enjoys no sovereignty. It is strictly an implementation partner, subordinate to the BoP’s international oversight. This is, of course, why all human rights people out there are so appalled by the entire approach of transforming Gaza into a modern-day UN protectorate—implemented through Trump’s private IO.
Under this branch of the scheme, the structure also envisions an International Stabilization Force (ISF) for Gaza—a military force. The ISF is not part of the BoP but rests on the authorization by the Security Council under UNSCR 2803, and is operationally coordinated through the BoP.
This is probably the only “good news” about this scheme, that the BoP is not designed to be an alliance or a military intervention force. The BoP itself has no military component. The ISF is strictly tied to UNSCR 2803 and not to Trump’s international organization. He is not establishing his own paramilitary or anything like that—at least not internationally through the BoP. Most likely, Trump is already trying to separate the Gaza aspect of the BoP from the rest of the organization, as he wants to use it for completely different purposes in the future. So the structure will probably soon look like this:
Sad Conclusion
The Board of Peace is not a rival UN. It is something more idiosyncratic: a personalized international organization that will most likely function as a business vehicle for Trump and his (family) entourage. Hence, the new charter speaks of “Peace Building” as the organization’s main goal. In the context of what we know about Trump, we'd better assume that this means mainly “building” stuff and doing business without much peace to be expected.
The shamelessness with which Trump is using the office of the President and the Genocide in Gaza to build an IO centered around him and him alone is quite breathtaking. But it seems the Wild West of the Multipolar Era belongs to the bold and the shameless. He will probably find enough support to make this thing a reality.
(And here is the above explanation in video form)
I think the Board of Peace is not only an idiosyncratic or a personal business vehicle for Trump.
It is far more sinister and more dangerous than a post-Presidential business operation for Trump.
It is part of a series of orchestrated moves by the USA to secede de facto from the UN, starting with the UN General Assembly speech, statements that the USA is outside international law, exit from 60+ international organisations and so on.
It smells to me like a form of privatised governance modelled by the Peter Thiel techno libertarian crowd - 'free cities' and ' 'network states'. Not a rival UN true, more a North American universal monarchy, inspired by court fools like Thiel, Curtis Yarvin and Michael Anton. As such it would likely have a distressingly high level of support from Vance and many in the USA elite, who have never been comfortable with the UN.
It should be resisted at every step. I am pleased to see reports that France has refused to join the Board. All the UNSC members who let that resolution pass by should hang their heads in shame and take action to make amends for their mistake now.
While it is clearly a highly personalised structure driven by Trump, when analysed in light of the 2025 National Security Strategy it takes on a deeper and more consequential dimension. The NSS explicitly redefines the preferred mode of projecting American power, moving away from integrated multilateral frameworks and favouring — or imposing, when necessary — direct, bilateral and hierarchical relationships with individual nation-states.
Once such a structure is in place, no future US administration, whether Democratic or Republican, will have a strong incentive to dismantle it. This reflects a strategic preference rather than a mere personal impulse. Trump may accelerate and dramatise this shift, but the underlying logic is systemic and enduring.