The Board of Peace is not about peace at all
By SABRINA FIGUEROA — sfigueroaavila@ucdavis.edu
After three years of Israel committing genocide against Palestinians, a United States-backed ceasefire was proposed in October 2025. However, the ceasefire is fragile, and remains a serious threat to the future of Palestinians. Israeli airstrikes have killed 600 people since the ceasefire was adopted, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has threatened to resume Israel’s offensive tactics if Hamas doesn’t disarm within 60 days (as of mid-February).
It’s clear that tension in the region is high, especially as restriction of humanitarian aid to the occupied Palestinian territories causes the conditions to remain dire. In an effort to address this, President Donald Trump announced a Board of Peace to oversee his ceasefire plan in September 2025. He appointed himself as chairman — ironic in light of his recent declaration of war on Iran, among other events of his term.
Initially, the Board of Peace was established by a United Nations (U.N.) Security Council resolution to focus on implementing Gaza peace plans. Yet, the charter explained that world leaders would be invited to join as “member states would be limited to three-year terms unless they pay $1 billion each to fund the board’s activities and earn permanent membership,“ according to an article by Reuters.
Trump also made clear, at the first board conference on Feb. 19, that the board would expand beyond Gaza and begin tackling conflicts worldwide, eventually overseeing the entire U.N. If this happens — and I wouldn’t put it past Trump to make it so — it could undermine the existing international legislative bodies.
This move may be an attempt to aid U.S. attempts to further its own interests, as the U.S. has a lot of power in the U.N. that they share with the rest of the Security Council. International law is already not used for justice as often as it should be, especially when such acts don’t benefit America: the largest hegemonic entity in the world. Those interests differ per presidential administration, and Trump has decided to prioritize the U.S. regardless of what might be the most globally advantageous. The board allows the administration to see how far they can go — with little accountability to law, as always — to change the way the international world operates, making it more unilateral than anything else.
The board could also be a massive security threat to many countries. The board is not officially nor widely recognized, with major U.S. allies such as France and the United Kingdom rejecting Trump’s invitation to join. Trump’s credentials for creating or preserving peace are also lacking: In the span of just two months, he captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, started a war with Iran and is currently planning new operations in Latin America to fight cartels. Not to mention that many leaders who joined the board — Argentina’s President Javier Milei, El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Netanyahu and more — have violated the human rights of their citizens.
Putting all of these people on a board to make crucial decisions — as a potentially international body — is concerning, considering it wouldn’t be fully representative of global governments. The board could act without any kind of approval and operate on illegitimate definitions of peace, leading to more grave and devastating outcomes.
Even in terms of peace plans in Gaza, the incentive to “rebuild” is blatantly about earning Trump a profit (afterall, Trump is a (bad) businessman) and securing Israel’s interests, more than it is about helping the people affected by the genocide. With little Palestinian presence on the board, there is a disproportionate representation of interests that are made clear by a majority of reconstruction funds not going “to the area where Palestinians are currently living but to areas under Israeli military control,” according to an article by National Public Radio (NPR).
To top it all off, the board’s plans include reconstructing Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) or soccer-related projects and reconstructing part of Gaza into a “Mediterranean Riviera with 200 hotels and potential islands.” This is all while Ali Shaath, the sole Palestinian speaker who heads the technocratic committee handling day-to-day governance of Gaza, and Hani Almadhoun, a Palestinian American running a food aid organization in Gaza also in board talks, struggle to operate in such extreme conditions.
Capitalizing off the land that Israel destroyed and from the displacement of Palestinians is not “peace” — it is exploitation of their vulnerability masqueraded behind “humanitarianism.” The U.S. has a tendency to use intervention and imperialism to fix an issue in the short-term for their benefit, while disregarding long-term impacts for the people of other countries. To put it plainly, “peace” is only acceptable when it enhances American hegemony — any other definition is insufficient to our federal government.
Additionally, the board’s charter also stated that the Chairman may not change unless they voluntarily resign from the role or are determined incapable of fulfilling the role by the Executive Board. With the Executive Board being appointed by the Chair, this means that Trump could potentially have a role in politics and international affairs for the rest of his life.
It seems as though Trump is determined to make himself a dictator one way or another. And with wishy-washy foreign policy, it begs the question of whether the Board of Peace is meant to further U.S. interests or simply inflate Trump’s ego. Either way, treating the suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza — as well as the suffering of those facing other issues in their countries — as a playground for promoting a Trumpist world should make us all angry.
The U.S. should be developing a plan that benefits Palestinians more than themselves, and must make great efforts to protect the occupied territories from further destruction. Change for true peace is deeper than buildings and beautiful resorts — it’s systemic.
Written by: Sabrina Figueroa — sfigueroaavila@ucdavis.edu
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual columnists belong to the columnists alone and do not necessarily indicate the views and opinions held by The California Aggie.
