United States President Donald J. Trump has unveiled an ambitious and controversial plan to establish an international diplomatic body dubbed the “Board of Peace,” in which countries would be required to pay $1 billion for permanent membership.
According to a draft charter of the proposed organisation obtained by Agence France-Presse and reviewed by international media, the Board of Peace is designed to promote global stability, restore governance and secure lasting peace in conflict-affected regions, beginning with efforts around the Gaza Strip.
Under the terms outlined in the charter, each member state invited to join will serve a standard three-year term, renewable at the discretion of the Board’s chairman, and countries wishing to extend their membership indefinitely beyond the initial period must contribute at least USD 1,000,000,000 (one billion U.S. dollars) in cash to the Board within the first year of its charter’s entry into force.
If the fee is paid, the time limit “shall not apply to Member States that contribute more than USD 1,000,000,000 in cash funds” to the Board, according to the draft document.
The Board of Peace would be chaired by Trump himself, with member representation by respective heads of state, according to the charter. Invitations have been reportedly sent to around 60 countries, including leaders such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, and Canada’s Mark Carney.
While early announcements of the initiative tied the Board’s mission to post-conflict reconstruction efforts in Gaza, the charter’s language suggests a broader mandate that could extend to other global conflict zones, a shift that has raised eyebrows in diplomatic circles.
The draft states that the Board would have, “A main governing board chaired by Trump. A Palestinian committee composed of technocrats tasked with governance issues in Gaza; and An executive board intended for advisory functions. ”
According to the charter, the Board’s fundamental purpose is to “promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict.”
The proposed membership fee has drawn widespread attention and criticism. Some nations have expressed caution or resistance to the steep financial requirement, while others have reiterated support for new approaches to peacebuilding.
Notably, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, appointed to the Board’s executive panel, has publicly distanced himself from the proposed $1 billion membership condition, emphasising that he has no role in setting membership costs and suggesting questions on that aspect should be directed to Trump’s administration.
A spokesperson for Blair made clear that the former prime minister “is not involved in decisions related to the board’s membership and would not publicly back the proposed fee,” adding that inquiries about the financial condition should go directly to the United States government.
Some invited countries, including Canada, have reportedly agreed in principle to participate in the Board but stopped short of committing to any financial contributions tied to membership, highlighting concerns about structure, transparency and governance.
The proposal comes at a time of intense global geopolitical debate over the role and effectiveness of multinational institutions. While some leaders view the initiative as a possible supplement to existing diplomatic mechanisms, others worry that it could undermine traditional frameworks for peacekeeping and post-conflict governance.
Although invitations have already been issued and several nations are reviewing them, many governments are expected to push for clarifications on how the Board would operate, how funds would be used, and what obligations would come with membership before making formal commitments.
As the Board of Peace’s charter continues to circulate among world capitals, the question remains whether the $1 billion price tag will hinder broad participation or become an accepted benchmark in the evolving architecture of global diplomacy.
