The Trump administration is asking countries seeking a permanent seat on President Donald Trump’s proposed new “Board of Peace” to contribute at least $1 billion, according to a draft charter of the initiative that has circulated among governments and diplomats.
Under the draft document, President Trump would serve as the Board of Peace’s inaugural chairman and wield sweeping authority over its structure, membership, finances and decision-making processes. While the body is described as an international organization designed to promote stability and secure lasting peace in conflict-prone regions, critics say its design raises serious concerns about transparency, governance and U.S. dominance.
The charter states that member states would normally serve a term of no more than three years, with renewals subject to the chairman’s approval. However, that limitation would not apply to countries that contribute more than $1 billion in cash within the first year of the charter’s entry into force. The provision effectively creates a tiered membership system, granting extended or indefinite participation to wealthy contributors.
Decisions of the board would formally be taken by a majority vote, with each member state present holding one vote. However, all decisions would still be subject to the chairman’s approval, giving Trump final authority over outcomes even when a majority consensus is reached. The chairman would also approve the organization’s official seal and set meeting agendas.
According to the draft, the Board of Peace would become operational once just three member states agree to the charter, a low threshold that could allow it to be launched quickly. Voting meetings would be held at least once a year, with additional sessions convened “at such times and locations as the Chairman deems appropriate.” Non-voting meetings with an executive board would take place at least quarterly.
Trump would also have the authority to remove a member state, though such a move could be blocked by a two-thirds veto from other members. The charter further stipulates that the chairman “shall at all times designate a successor,” consolidating leadership control within the office of the chair.
White House officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the draft charter or on concerns raised by foreign governments.
The proposal has already drawn sharp criticism from some diplomats and analysts, who fear the Board of Peace could become a rival to the United Nations, an institution Trump has repeatedly criticized as inefficient, biased and overly bureaucratic. Skeptics argue that the board’s structure undermines multilateral norms by concentrating power in a single individual and linking influence directly to financial contributions.
Trump has already invited several world leaders to participate in a proposed “Board of Peace for Gaza,” which would operate under the broader umbrella of the new organization. Among those reportedly invited are Argentina’s President Javier Milei and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. The Gaza-related initiative sparked immediate backlash from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said the proposal had not been coordinated with Israel and raised questions about its legitimacy.
Several European nations have also been invited to join the board, according to people familiar with the discussions. However, those same sources said the draft charter suggests Trump would personally control the organization’s funds, a provision widely seen as unacceptable by many potential members. Multiple countries are now said to be coordinating efforts to collectively push back against the draft’s most controversial elements.
On Friday, the White House announced the formation of an initial executive panel linked to the initiative. The panel includes Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, and former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. The panel is expected to advise on peace initiatives ahead of the board’s formal establishment.
As discussions continue, the proposal has underscored deep divisions over the future of international governance, with supporters framing the Board of Peace as a pragmatic alternative to existing institutions, and critics warning it risks politicizing peace efforts and weakening established global frameworks.
