WASHINGTON, D.C. – Former U.S. President Donald Trump has once again entered the international arena with a proposal that has sparked intense political and diplomatic debate: the creation of a Global Peace Council, also known as the Peace Board, in which interested countries would have to contribute $1 billion to secure a permanent seat. The initiative, revealed by international media and attributed to working drafts from Trump's inner circle, seeks to establish a parallel structure for mediation and reconstruction in conflict zones, with the Gaza Strip as the initial focus of intervention.
The proposal arises in a context of the exhaustion of traditional multilateral mechanisms and a growing perception of the ineffectiveness of organizations like the United Nations (UN) in resolving protracted conflicts. Trump has championed this new body as a more agile alternative, with concentrated leadership and guaranteed resources, capable of implementing swift decisions in scenarios where traditional diplomacy has failed.
Money management and Trump's central role
One of the most controversial aspects of the project is the concentration of power in the administration of the fund. According to preliminary documents, Trump would assume the inaugural presidency of the Global Peace Council, with broad powers to authorize the admission of member countries, validate strategic decisions, and oversee the use of the financial resources raised.
The scheme establishes two levels of participation: countries contributing US$1 billion would obtain permanent membership, while those that do not make the payment could join temporarily, for a limited period and subject to review. This model has drawn criticism for conditioning diplomatic participation on the ability to pay and for centralizing control of billions of dollars in a structure with personalized leadership.
Invited countries and official reactions
More than 60 countries have been invited to join the Peace Board. These include Argentina, Canada, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, India, Pakistan, and other regional actors and emerging powers. Argentine President Javier Milei publicly confirmed receiving the invitation, although he clarified that no decision has been made regarding a potential financial contribution. In Paraguay, the government acknowledged the contact but denied any financial commitment.
Reactions have been mixed. Some governments have expressed interest in analyzing the proposal as an alternative means of conflict resolution, while others have voiced caution given the high cost of joining and the political implications of joining an organization led by Trump. In Europe, several foreign ministries have warned about the impact this structure could have on the balance of the existing multilateral system.
The Peace Board and its possible composition
The Global Peace Council's internal structure would consist of an Executive Board with high-profile political and economic figures. Among the names that have surfaced are US Secretary of State Marco Rubio; Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and former key advisor; former British Prime Minister Tony Blair; and World Bank President Ajay Banga. This composition reinforces the perception of an organization with strong Western influence and close ties to the former US president's political circle.
This potential composition has raised questions about the representativeness of the regions directly affected by the conflicts, particularly the Middle East, as well as about the lack of clear accountability mechanisms.
Gaza as the central axis and counterweight to the UN
Although the Global Peace Council presents itself as a global organization, its initial focus would be on the Gaza Strip. The funds raised through contributions from member countries would be primarily allocated to the reconstruction of the territory and the implementation of a political and economic stabilization plan after more than two years of war. In practice, the initiative is shaping up to be a direct counterweight to the UN, with its own rules, guaranteed funding, and a more centralized chain of command.
For proponents of the project, this model would allow for a faster response in crisis situations. For its critics, it poses a risk of further weakening the multilateral system and subordinating international peace to specific political and economic interests.
Recent data on the war in Gaza
The war in Gaza has left unprecedented human and material devastation in the region. From the start of the conflict in October 2023 until the end of 2025, it is estimated that more than 72,000 people have died, mostly civilians, and that around 170,000 have been injured, many with permanent damage. In addition, some 11,000 people remain missing, buried under the rubble or unaccounted for.
The demographic impact has been profound: Gaza's population has decreased by approximately 250,000 people, equivalent to more than 10% of its pre-war inhabitants. In territorial terms, over 90% of the built environment has been damaged or destroyed, including homes, hospitals, schools, universities, roads, and water and electricity networks. An estimated 44,000 hectares of agricultural land have been rendered unusable or severely damaged.
The economic collapse is equally dramatic. Gaza's Gross Domestic Product has contracted by more than 80%, with unemployment exceeding 75% and a near-total halt in productive activity. Direct economic losses exceed US$30 billion, while the costs of full reconstruction could take decades and require an investment far exceeding that amount.
