Trump’s “Board of Peace” Proposal: 12 Members Invited, 7 Countries Reject Plan, Global Backlash Grows
Former US President Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace” proposal has sparked global debate, with 12 members invited and 7 countries rejecting the plan
Former US President Donald Trump has once again found himself at the center of international controversy with his latest geopolitical idea — the proposed creation of a “Board of Peace.” Marketed as a bold diplomatic innovation aimed at resolving major global conflicts, the initiative has already generated headlines, diplomatic unease, and strong reactions from both allies and rivals. With 12 members reportedly invited and at least 7 countries rejecting the proposal outright, Trump’s plan has become a flashpoint in the ongoing debate about informal diplomacy, power politics, and the future of international conflict resolution.
This article breaks down what the Board of Peace is, who was invited to join, which countries rejected it, and why the proposal has triggered widespread skepticism across the global diplomatic community.This article breaks down what the Board of Peace is, who was invited to join, which countries rejected it, and why the proposal has triggered widespread skepticism across the global diplomatic community.
The Board of Peace, according to sources close to Trump’s team, is envisioned as an informal, elite group of global leaders, business figures, and influential power brokers who would work outside traditional diplomatic frameworks like the United Nations or NATO. The idea, Trump has reportedly suggested, is to bring together “real decision-makers” who could cut through bureaucracy and deliver swift conflict resolutions.
Trump’s inner circle describes the initiative as a pragmatic alternative to slow multilateral institutions, arguing that existing systems have failed to prevent or resolve wars in Ukraine, Gaza, and other hotspots. Supporters of the proposal say the Board of Peace could act as a private diplomatic channel, mediating disputes through personal influence rather than official state mechanisms.
However, critics see the idea as deeply problematic. They argue that it undermines established international institutions, lacks accountability, and could concentrate excessive influence in the hands of unelected individuals.
While the full list has not been officially published, diplomatic sources and media leaks suggest that Trump extended invitations to 12 high-profile figures drawn from politics, business, and geopolitics. The reported invitees include:
- Vladimir Putin (Russia) – The Russian president was reportedly invited as a key power broker in the Ukraine war.
- Xi Jinping (China) – As China’s leader and a major geopolitical force, Xi’s inclusion was expected but controversial.
- Narendra Modi (India) – India’s prime minister was invited due to India’s growing global influence and strategic neutrality.
- Benjamin Netanyahu (Israel) – Invited amid the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict.
- Mohammed bin Salman (Saudi Arabia) – Seen as a regional heavyweight in the Middle East.
- Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (Turkey) – A NATO member with complex ties to both Russia and the West.
- Elon Musk (United States) – Invited as a tech billionaire with global influence and a close association with Trump in recent years.
- Jared Kushner (United States) – Trump’s son-in-law and former Middle East envoy.
- Mohammed bin Zayed (UAE) – The UAE president, known for diplomatic activism.
- Volodymyr Zelensky (Ukraine) – Invited to represent Ukraine’s position in the war.
- Paul Kagame (Rwanda) – Known for regional mediation efforts in Africa.
- Imran Khan (Pakistan) – Former prime minister with close ties to Trump during his presidency.
These invitations immediately raised eyebrows. Critics questioned why some sitting leaders were invited alongside private individuals like Musk and Kushner, blurring the line between official diplomacy and private influence.
Almost as quickly as the invitations were rumored to have gone out, a wave of rejections followed. At least 7 countries reportedly declined to participate, citing concerns about legitimacy, neutrality, and legal authority.
The countries said to have rejected the Board of Peace include:
- Germany – Officials expressed discomfort with bypassing established international institutions.
- France – Paris reportedly dismissed the proposal as “informal and unserious.”
- United Kingdom – British diplomats raised concerns about accountability and transparency.
- Japan – Tokyo declined, citing the need for multilateral frameworks.
- Canada – Canadian officials questioned Trump’s motives and the structure of the board.
- Brazil – The Brazilian government reportedly refused due to concerns about political bias.
- South Africa – Declined participation, citing neutrality and institutional legitimacy issues.
In addition, several countries neither accepted nor formally rejected the proposal, opting instead for a “wait and see” approach.
The rejection by major democratic nations underscores deep skepticism about the proposal. Diplomats and policy experts have raised multiple red flags:
1. Lack of Legal Authority
The Board of Peace has no legal standing under international law. Unlike the UN Security Council or International Court of Justice, it cannot issue binding decisions.
2. Bypassing Established Institutions
Many governments view the board as an attempt to sideline the UN, undermining decades of international diplomacy norms.
3. Concentration of Power
Critics argue that giving a small group of unelected elites informal authority over global peace efforts is inherently dangerous.
4. Political Bias
Trump’s personal relationships with some invitees — particularly Putin and Musk — have fueled accusations that the board could be politically skewed.
Despite widespread criticism, Trump’s allies insist the Board of Peace could succeed where traditional diplomacy has failed.
They argue that:
- The UN is gridlocked by veto politics.
- Informal channels can sometimes resolve conflicts faster.
- Personal relationships between leaders can unlock breakthroughs.
Trump himself has reportedly told supporters that the board would “end wars in weeks, not years,” a claim that has been met with skepticism by foreign policy experts.
UN officials have not issued a formal statement, but senior diplomats speaking anonymously described the proposal as “unworkable” and “institutionally dangerous.”
One European diplomat said:
This is not how peace is made in the modern world. You don’t gather billionaires and strongmen in a private room and call it diplomacy.”
The Board of Peace has also become a political talking point in the United States, especially as Trump remains a dominant figure in American politics.
- Republican supporters see it as proof of Trump’s deal-making prowess.
- Democrats have dismissed it as a publicity stunt.
- Foreign policy experts warn it could undermine US credibility abroad.
Several US senators have already called for congressional scrutiny if any American resources are used to support the initiative.
The proposal comes at a time of global instability, including:
- The Ukraine-Russia war
- The Israel-Gaza conflict
- Rising tensions in the South China Sea
- Political instability in parts of Africa and the Middle East
Supporters argue that a bold initiative is needed, but critics counter that ad hoc diplomacy could make these conflicts worse.
At this stage, the Board of Peace exists more as a concept than a formal body. No official charter, funding structure, or operational framework has been announced.
Key unanswered questions include:
- Who funds the board?
- Where would it be based?
- How would decisions be enforced?
- Would governments recognize its authority?
Until these issues are clarified, most analysts expect governments to continue distancing themselves from the initiative.
Read Also : Breaking: Jagtial Bus Catches Fire in Mumbai, 1 Vehicle Engulfed, Dozens Evacuated Safely
