Trump’s Board of Peace Vision: Reform Initiative or Power Projection Beyond the UN?
US President Donald Trump has proposed expanding the role of the newly formed Board of Peace (BoP), positioning it as a body that could supervise and complement the work of the United Nations. The remarks, delivered during the group’s first meeting, suggest ambitions that extend far beyond the Board’s initial mandate of supporting ceasefire and reconstruction efforts in Gaza. The proposal has triggered debate among diplomats and policy observers over whether this signals a push for institutional reform or an attempt to reshape global governance through US influence.
The BoP emerged with a narrow focus — facilitating peacebuilding in Gaza following Security Council endorsement. However, Trump’s comments about the body potentially overseeing the UN and expanding into other global conflicts indicate a broader strategic vision. At the same time, UN officials, including spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric representing Secretary-General António Guterres, reaffirmed that the UN’s authority is defined by its Charter and member states through the General Assembly and Security Council. This institutional tension sets the stage for a wider conversation about the future of multilateral diplomacy.
Supporters of Trump’s approach argue that global institutions often struggle with slow decision-making, particularly due to the Security Council veto held by five permanent members, including the United States. This structural limitation has historically hindered rapid responses to conflicts. From this perspective, a flexible body such as the Board of Peace could function as a pragmatic mechanism to bypass bureaucratic gridlock, enabling faster ceasefire negotiations, reconstruction coordination and diplomatic pressure.
Trump’s criticism that the UN has not fully realised its potential reflects a longstanding view within parts of US foreign policy circles that reform is necessary. His emphasis on strengthening the UN financially and operationally suggests the BoP could be framed as a complementary tool rather than a replacement. Proponents also highlight the possibility that US diplomatic leverage, economic capacity and military influence could accelerate peace initiatives when multilateral consensus proves difficult.
Counterpoints
Critics, however, warn that positioning any external body as an overseer of the UN risks undermining the principle of collective governance that defines the organisation. The UN’s legitimacy rests on member-state equality, and a structure perceived as US-led could deepen geopolitical divisions rather than resolve them.
Financial tensions further complicate the narrative. The United States remains the UN’s largest contributor but has also accumulated billions in unpaid dues, contributing to warnings that the organisation faces serious budget pressures. Promises to strengthen the UN without clear commitments to settle outstanding payments raise questions about consistency between rhetoric and policy.
Experts also caution that peacebuilding initiatives require broad international buy-in to succeed. A body expanding beyond its initial mandate without clear accountability mechanisms could blur lines between multilateral cooperation and unilateral influence. While innovation in diplomacy is often necessary, institutional overlap may create confusion about authority during crises.
Trump’s Board of Peace proposal highlights a recurring dilemma in global governance: how to balance efficiency with legitimacy. The UN’s structural constraints have long prompted calls for reform, and new mechanisms can sometimes catalyse progress. Yet the durability of peace processes depends on trust, transparency and shared ownership among nations.
Whether the BoP evolves into a meaningful peacebuilding platform or remains a politically symbolic initiative will depend on its mandate clarity, coordination with the UN and willingness of member states to participate. The broader debate ultimately reflects deeper questions about the future of multilateralism in an era of shifting power dynamics.