What is the Board of Peace?
By Robert McDonald, Senior Legislative Researcher
What is the Board of Peace? It is a great question, and the release of its charter and members only creates more questions. The limited answers that are available raise serious concerns about whether the Board is designed to truly advance peace and provide a pathway to Palestinian self-determination. Viewed through its membership, structure, and incentives, the Board appears less as a peacebuilding institution and more as a kleptocratic (meaning: rule by thieves) organization, one dominated by far-right political actors hostile to the rules based international order and willing to use public authority and public funds for personal gain.
The states represented on the Board are notably not defined by strong or existent democratic institutions, established peacebuilding records, or any consistency in adhering to international human rights norms. In fact, multiple invited and official representatives, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, are subject to outstanding arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court, with Netanyahu unable to attend the signing ceremony due to concerns of being arrested. President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko, known as Europe’s last dictator and target of U.S. led sanctions due to his poor human rights record, violent repression of pro-democracy protests, and backing for Putin in the war in Ukraine, officially joined the Board of Peace. These facts raise serious concerns about its legitimacy and desire to help the people of Gaza.
The incentives for participation appear less rooted in peacebuilding than in transactional political alignment. Many participating leaders are close personal or political allies of President Donald Trump, or seek to leverage his influence to advance their own regional or domestic goals. The composition of the Board is telling. It includes rivals and adversaries whose regional goals are incompatible, states vulnerable to U.S. economic pressure to tariffs and reliant on U.S. military aid, political leaders who have consolidated political power in themselves, and a government that received a $40 billion bailout from the U.S. Members can pay $1 billion for permanent membership (Putin being the only potential member reported to consider paying the fee by utilizing frozen Russian assets frozen due to Russia’s war of aggression and war crimes in Ukraine). Rather than a coalition of states committed to post-conflict reconstruction and protection for civilians in Gaza, the Board increasingly resembles a network of politicians seeking access, leverage, and financial opportunity under the cover of peacebuilding and humanitarian aid.
What does kleptocracy look like in practice in the Board of Peace? It looks like reconstruction run through opaque contracting and security arrangements; access sold through “membership” fees; and decision making centralized in a chairman who can override institutions meant to protect civilians.
The United Nations Rival?
The rules based international order is deeply flawed. The United Nations (UN) has repeatedly failed to prevent or halt mass civilian harm, including in Gaza, and those failures underscore the urgent need for reform. But the UN remains a near universal forum in which states, large and small, can contest power, articulate grievances, and attempt collective solutions. While only a handful of states sit on the Security Council or wield veto power, all member states retain a voice within a system designed, however imperfectly, to reduce the risk of catastrophic global conflict in the aftermath of World War II, which killed an estimated 60 to 80 million people.
Like the United States’ own aspiration toward a “more perfect union,” the UN was never designed to be flawless or static. Its legitimacy derives from broad participation and the possibility of reform through collective action. The Board of Peace offers no such pathway. It is not accountable to a global membership, cannot be reformed through democratic or multilateral processes, and can change only at the discretion of its Chairman. It is less a rival United Nations, than a new United Corruptocracy.
The Board of Peace has been presented by the United States as part of a broader framework endorsed by the UN for post-war stabilization and reconstruction in Gaza, and as a transitional body tied to that specific context. However, the Board’s charter does not mention Gaza at all, and instead establishes ongoing membership structures, leadership succession mechanisms, and institutional authorities that extend well beyond any UN mandate. This creates a fundamental disconnect between how the Board is publicly justified and what its founding document actually establishes.
The charter explicitly positions the Board as an alternative to existing international peacebuilding institutions, and unlike the UN, its authority is extraordinarily centralized. While the Board includes an executive body, final authority over appointments, removals, interpretation of the charter, funding pathways, and institutional direction is concentrated in the Chairman. Under the charter, Donald Trump serves in two distinct capacities: as the inaugural Chairman of the Board of Peace, with the authority to designate his own successor, and, separately, as the inaugural representative of the United States. While these are legally distinct roles, they are held by the same individual, raising profound questions about accountability, institutional continuity, and the ability for the American people to have a say through their elected representatives on what U.S. participation really is.
So, after saying all that, what the hell can Congress do?
The Role of Congress
Congress’s ability to exercise oversight over the Board of Peace is limited but not nonexistent. The representative of the United States is President Donald Trump, while the Chairman of the Board is Donald Trump acting in a separate capacity under the charter. This dual role complicates traditional congressional oversight mechanisms that are normally applied to executive-branch activity.
Hypothetically, Congress can pass a law that would remove the United States from the Board, but would not necessarily remove Donald Trump from his role as Chairman of the Board itself (unless it made participation illegal for all U.S. citizens), raising unresolved constitutional and legal questions about the ability of a sitting president to continue operating an international organization in an individual capacity while serving as President of the United States or in a role with veto power over the next President. Most importantly, Congress retains control over appropriations, authorizations, and oversight. Congress can pass laws and funding restrictions that determine where U.S. money may be spent and can require that no funds appropriated by Congress may be spent to support or enable participation in the Board of Peace; it should also direct that funds intended for the reconstruction of Gaza are actually used for Gaza and not diverted to unrelated initiatives or institutions.
Congress’s most important responsibility will be sustained oversight. Several U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, participate in the Board’s executive leadership, and their actions remain subject to congressional hearings, reporting requirements, and budgetary constraints. Hearings examining the Board’s activities, funding flows, and decision-making must be a priority for Congress. As of now, it is not known who will comprise the International Security Forces referenced in connection with the Board. While Presidents have limited authority to deploy U.S. forces under existing law, Congress retains, at least in theory, decisive power through authorizations, appropriations, and the War Powers framework (in practice however, it is Presidents who have the decisive say, and Congress, despite its constitutional mandate, that is left, or chooses to remain, in the dust).
Congressional oversight of the Board of Peace will be paramount to ensure that America’s national interests and the public funds of the American people are used appropriately. Congress has the power to authorize the legal use of funds strictly on specific projects within the UN mandated authorization of the Board. Doing so will help mitigate damage to America’s national interest and reputation. Public hearings and unclassified reports on the use of those funds will provide Congress with the necessary data to do its congressional mandated role and take back some of its constitutional power over the purse in matters of foreign policy and ensure the American people are informed of what the Board is doing in their name.
