The U.S. is considering expanding its “Board of Peace,” initially focused on Gaza, to include Ukraine, Venezuela, and other global conflict zones, raising questions about its role compared to the UN.
The United States is reportedly exploring plans to broaden the scope of its newly established “Board of Peace,” which was created to oversee the reconstruction of Gaza following years of conflict. This potential expansion has sparked interest and concern among diplomats and governments, particularly as discussions center on Ukraine, Venezuela, and possibly other regions affected by prolonged crises.
The Board of Peace was officially formed on January 15, 2026, under UN Security Council Resolution 2803. Its primary mission is to facilitate Gaza’s recovery after a devastating conflict that erupted in 2023. Chaired by U.S. President Donald Trump, the board includes notable figures such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, and various special envoys and international leaders.
What exactly is the Board of Peace? It is an international body designed to support the administration, reconstruction, and economic recovery of the Gaza Strip. This initiative operates alongside a Palestinian technocratic committee that is responsible for civil governance. Trump has described the board as “the greatest and most prestigious board ever assembled at any time, any place.”
Unlike traditional peacekeeping or reconstruction efforts, the Board of Peace combines diplomatic oversight with mandates for reconstruction and development. Its creation was supported by the United Nations but was largely driven by U.S. diplomatic efforts.
Why is the U.S. considering expanding the Board of Peace beyond Gaza? Senior U.S. officials and diplomats suggest that the Trump administration views the board as a potential model for addressing other global conflicts. Some discussions indicate that it could function not only as a reconstruction body but also as a mediating or supervisory entity in diplomatic efforts, particularly in regions experiencing prolonged tensions.
One area of focus is Ukraine, where international efforts to resolve the ongoing war with Russia have stalled. A senior official from Kyiv has described proposals for a similar body to monitor the implementation of peace plans between Ukraine, Russia, and Western partners.
Another conflict under consideration is Venezuela, where political instability continues following the U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro. Expanding the board’s mandate in this context could involve both diplomatic and reconstruction support, although specific details remain unclear.
The potential expansion of the Board of Peace has elicited mixed reactions among diplomats. Some Western and Arab officials express caution, concerned that the board’s prominence might undermine traditional multilateral institutions like the United Nations. An unnamed Arab diplomat remarked that the idea of using the board as a parallel alternative to the UN has raised eyebrows.
Critics question the effectiveness and legitimacy of an expanded Board of Peace in mediating conflicts that extend beyond its original mandate. Many argue that diplomatic legitimacy and inclusiveness are crucial for achieving lasting peace—elements that are deeply rooted in UN-led processes.
Supporters, however, contend that a reimagined board could address gaps left by slow global diplomacy, offering innovative ways to facilitate negotiations in Ukraine and help stabilize deeply divided nations, provided it is implemented thoughtfully and with the support of key stakeholders.
What lies ahead for the Board of Peace? U.S. officials have suggested that further announcements regarding the board’s role and membership may be made at significant international forums, such as the World Economic Forum in Davos, where policymakers and world leaders often unveil new initiatives and agreements.
For the time being, the Board of Peace remains focused on Gaza, where challenges related to reconstruction and governance require urgent attention. However, if discussions about expansion progress, the board could evolve into a broader peace coordination body, potentially reshaping how the international community addresses complex conflicts.
If the Board of Peace becomes active beyond Gaza, it could indicate a shift in the U.S. approach to global conflict resolution—moving towards more direct, leadership-driven frameworks rather than relying solely on traditional multilateral mechanisms. Whether this strategy will garner widespread international support or exacerbate geopolitical tensions remains a critical question on the global stage.
According to The Sunday Guardian, the developments surrounding the Board of Peace could have significant implications for international diplomacy in the coming years.