United States President Donald Trump is not just launching a reconstruction initiative for Gaza he is testing a new model of global governance.
At the inaugural meeting of his “Board of Peace” in Washington, DC, Trump presented the body as an alternative to traditional multilateral institutions, openly suggesting it would “overlook” the United Nations to ensure it “runs properly.” The symbolism was unmistakable: this is not simply about rebuilding Gaza, but about redefining who gets to lead international crisis management.
Hosted at the United States Institute for Peace, the summit gathered regional powers, financial institutions and military partners in what Trump described as a results-driven coalition unconstrained by the bureaucracy of legacy institutions.
For decades, the UN has been the primary forum for addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Trump’s Board of Peace signals a pivot away from that framework toward a US-led coalition model that blends state actors, private capital and military coordination.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued that existing international mechanisms had failed to solve what he called a “unique crisis.” Vice President JD Vance framed the board as proof that decisive leadership rather than consensus diplomacy can “make peace stick.”
France declined participation outright, reportedly concerned that the board risks usurping UN functions. The UK, Italy and Germany sent observers but refused formal membership, citing constitutional and legal complications.
The message from parts of Europe is cautious: reconstruction, yes but not at the expense of established international norms.
Trump pledged $10bn from the United States and claimed more than $7bn in additional contributions from Gulf and Central Asian partners.
But the structure of the initiative reveals something more transformative. Ajay Banga confirmed the World Bank will serve as a “limited trustee,” managing donor funds while the Board of Peace retains strategic control. This hybrid structure public funding overseen by a multilateral lender but directed by a political boardis unusual.
Marc Rowan of Apollo Global Management described Gaza’s coastline as holding $50bn in potential value, reinforcing Trump’s long-standing framing of the enclave as an economic asset waiting to be unlocked.
In effect, the Board of Peace blends geopolitics with investment strategy merging reconstruction with market opportunity.
The proposed International Stabilisation Force (ISF) further underscores the structural shift. General Jasper Jeffers outlined plans for a 20,000-strong force, supported by 12,000 locally trained police.
Countries including Indonesia, Morocco, Kosovo and Albania have reportedly pledged troops. Egypt and Jordan will assist with police training. Turkiye’s foreign minister, Hakan Fidan, signalled readiness to deploy forces as well despite opposition from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Notably absent from the architecture: a UN mandate.
Experts warn that without a durable ceasefire or agreement from Hamas, deployment remains unlikely. But the blueprint itself reflects Washington’s willingness to construct parallel security arrangements beyond traditional UN peacekeeping channels.
A Palestinian technocratic body has been appointed to manage daily operations in Gaza, yet there is no Palestinian political representation on the broader board.
Qatar’s prime minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani, was the only senior leader at the summit to explicitly reference Palestinian statehood.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar praised the board’s emphasis on disarmament and demilitarisation, framing it as a plan to address the “root of the problem.”
The imbalance illustrates a defining tension: the board prioritises security, investment and administration while final-status political questions remain sidelined.
Trump described the Board of Peace as a model that could be replicated in other “impossible” conflicts. If successful, it could represent a new doctrine: coalition-based reconstruction driven by US leadership, private capital and selective military coordination operating adjacent to, rather than within, UN systems.
If it falters, it may deepen geopolitical fractures and reinforce scepticism about unilateral frameworks.
Erizia Rubyjeana
Follow us on:
