Global peace mechanisms always spark my curiosity about how power and money intersect in diplomacy—this Trump 'Board of Peace' idea is a prime example of bold, unconventional thinking that could either innovate or polarize international relations profoundly. The proposal, detailed in a draft charter reviewed by Bloomberg, starts with overseeing Gaza's post-war rebuilding but explicitly allows expansion to "any conflict as it arises" or "other countries going to war," positioning it as a dynamic, action-oriented forum contrasting the often-gridlocked UN that Trump has frequently criticized as ineffective and bloated.

The standout feature is the financial barrier: permanent membership demands $1 billion cash paid within the first year, waiving a standard three-year term limit for non-payers—funds directed almost exclusively to Gaza reconstruction efforts. Trump holds extensive chairman authority: personally inviting members, approving the official seal, removing individuals (with two-thirds override possible), and naming his own successor. Invitations have gone to heads of state like Argentina's Javier Milei, Paraguay's Santiago Pena, Egypt's Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan, plus non-governmental figures such as former Bank of England governor Mark Carney and Apollo Global Management CEO Marc Rowan.

The executive panel includes close allies Marco Rubio, Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner. Critics label it a "Trump United Nations," arguing it undermines post-World War II order by sidelining major powers like Russia and China through veto absence and pay-to-play structure. Israeli officials distanced themselves, noting lack of coordination with Netanyahu's policies, particularly regarding potential Turkish or Palestinian involvement. Former UK PM Tony Blair's advisory role draws ire given Iraq legacy. Rights advocates decry "colonial" undertones in elite decision-making. In my view, the direct funding model could inject real resources into crisis zones bypassing bureaucratic delays, potentially achieving tangible results where UN falls short. Yet centralized power in one individual and financial exclusivity raise serious governance questions—democratic legitimacy or oligarchic club? Hoping if pursued, it evolves transparently and inclusively, complementing rather than replacing established bodies for sustainable global stability amid rising conflicts worldwide.