U.S. President Donald Trump has invited dozens of world leaders to join a newly established conflict-resolution mechanism known as the Board of Peace (BoP), an initiative that has attracted both participation and skepticism as governments weigh its implications for existing international institutions.
Originally announced in September 2025 as part of Washington’s efforts to end the Gaza conflict, the Board of Peace has since been expanded in scope. According to its charter, the body is mandated to mediate broader international disputes, positioning itself as a parallel forum for conflict management under U.S. leadership.
Trump is set to serve as the board’s inaugural chairman. Membership is structured around three-year terms, with states able to obtain permanent status through a financial contribution of US$1 billion to support the board’s operations.
The White House has appointed a founding Executive Board composed of senior political and diplomatic figures, including U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, special envoy Steve Witkoff, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.
Indonesia has formally accepted the invitation alongside seven Arab and Muslim-majority states. In a joint statement issued on January 22, the foreign ministers of Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates confirmed their participation.
The ministers stated their intention to support the Board of Peace’s role as a transitional administrative mechanism under the Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict, while emphasizing that formal participation would proceed in accordance with domestic legal and procedural requirements.
Beyond the Middle East and Southeast Asia, Armenia and Azerbaijan have also joined following a U.S.-mediated peace agreement reached in August 2025. Belarus has likewise accepted the invitation, a move that has drawn scrutiny given its human rights record and close alignment with Moscow.
International reactions to the Board of Peace have been mixed. Several U.S. allies, including Norway, Sweden, and France, have declined participation, while Italy cited constitutional constraints. Canada has expressed preliminary support but has not finalized its terms of involvement.
Major powers holding permanent seats on the UN Security Council, including Russia and China, have yet to formally respond. Analysts suggest both capitals are likely to approach the initiative cautiously, viewing it as a potential challenge to the United Nations’ central role in conflict mediation.
Other states, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, and Ukraine, have not committed. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has publicly questioned the feasibility of participating in a forum that would include Russia amid the ongoing war. The Vatican has confirmed that Pope Leo is reviewing the invitation.
Critics argue that the Board of Peace risks politicizing conflict resolution by concentrating authority under U.S. leadership and introducing financial thresholds for permanent membership. Supporters counter that the structure could expedite outcomes in long-stalled conflicts by aligning political commitment with material investment.
While Trump has insisted the Board of Peace will not replace the United Nations, the initiative underscores broader debates over the future of multilateralism and the growing appeal of alternative frameworks for managing global crises.