In a bold international initiative, US President Donald Trump announced that members of his newly formed “Board of Peace” have pledged more than $5 billion toward humanitarian aid and Gaza’s reconstruction, marking a significant development in efforts to rebuild war‑torn Palestinian territory after years of conflict.
The announcement — to be formalized at the Board’s inaugural meeting in Washington, D.C. — signals an ambitious U.S.‑led push to reshape stabilization efforts in Gaza while eliciting both global support and intense diplomatic controversy.
A $5 Billion Pledge With a Global Footprint
President Trump took to his social media platform to declare that the “Board of Peace” — a coalition of more than 20 countries including Middle Eastern and regional powers — will unveil pledges amounting to over $5 billion for reconstruction and humanitarian relief in Gaza.
In addition to financial commitments, participating nations have reportedly agreed to contribute “thousands of personnel” towards an international stabilization force and local police units designed to maintain security and peace as rebuilding efforts proceed.
Among the first concrete troop commitments is Indonesia’s announcement of up to 8,000 potential personnel available for deployment by June as part of a humanitarian and peacekeeping mission — the first substantial military contribution of its kind under the plan.
The Board of Peace: Structure, Mandate and Vision
The “Board of Peace,” which chairs the initiative, was created to oversee the post‑war reconstruction and stabilization of Gaza following a ceasefire that largely halted a two‑year war between Israel and Hamas in October 2025.
Trump consistently emphasizes the board’s “unlimited potential,” claiming it could become “the most consequential international body in history.” He holds the chairmanship and has framed the initiative as central to ensuring long‑term peace and security for civilians in the embattled enclave.
Despite high expectations, the projected $5 billion in pledges represents a small fraction of the estimated $70 billion needed to rebuild the devastated region, according to United Nations, World Bank, and European Union assessments.
Humanitarian and Security Context
Gaza’s infrastructure was devastated by years of conflict, with civilian infrastructure almost entirely destroyed and the humanitarian needs immense. The ceasefire brokered in October halted the most intense hostilities, but violence continues sporadically and ceasefire violations remain a threat to reconstruction governance.
A key aspect of Trump’s plan is the pledge to establish not just financial support, but security frameworks in Gaza through international stabilization forces and local policing. While details remain sparse, this reflects a shift toward embedding reconstruction within a broader security strategy rather than solely humanitarian relief.
Diplomatic Frictions and Global Reception
While some nations have embraced the initiative, others — including several traditional Western allies — have expressed reservations about the Board’s leadership, mandate, and transparency.
European Union leaders, for example, have criticized the Board as overly U.S.‑centric and lacking inclusivity and connection to existing UN mechanisms. Questions about European exclusion from key decision‑making have surfaced, particularly given Europe’s longstanding financial and humanitarian contributions to Palestinian support agencies.
There are also concerns about whether the Board’s actions could undermine traditional multilateral frameworks like the United Nations Security Council, especially after some Western countries declined to join the Board due to fears of duplicating or supplanting UN authority.
Policy Priorities: Demilitarization and Reconstruction Rules
Trump has made clear that Gaza reconstruction pledges are tied to security conditions, most notably the demilitarization of Hamas. Several reports indicate the U.S. position that reconstruction and stabilization efforts should proceed only if Hamas commits to relinquishing military control — a precondition that remains contentious and politically sensitive.
The requirement for demilitarization reflects Trump’s broader peace plan, which has included ceasefire negotiations, disarmament goals, and proposals for transitional governance, yet the durability of these conditions is unclear amid shifting regional dynamics.
How This Fits Into Broader Geopolitics
The announcement comes amid broader Middle East tensions, including increased U.S. military posture in the region and negotiations with key partners such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, and Indonesia.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has engaged directly with Trump on the Gaza plan, though diplomatic relations remain complex; some Arab states and European actors have balked at elements of the initiative that appear to marginalize Palestinian representation or UN involvement.
Transparency, Legitimacy and Long‑Term Impact
The Board of Peace has attracted critiques that mirror broader debates about international peacebuilding:
-
Transparency: Critics argue that the Board needs clearer accountability and oversight mechanisms, especially for the use of funds and operational decision‑making.
-
Representation: Questions remain about how Palestinian voices and local governance structures will be integrated into reconstruction planning.
-
Legitimacy: Skeptics fear that a U.S.‑led initiative run outside traditional UN systems could undermine established multilateral norms and create parallel structures.
Such doubts underscore the geopolitical balancing act shaping the initiative: one that seeks rapid action but may struggle to secure universal buy‑in.
Ambition Meets Complexity
President Trump’s announcement that Board of Peace members have pledged over $5 billion for Gaza reconstruction represents a significant diplomatic and humanitarian milestone, even if it falls far short of the needs on the ground.
The initiative aims to meld humanitarian aid, security stabilization, and postwar governance under one umbrella, but its success will hinge on securing broader international backing, navigating political frictions, and ensuring that reconstruction efforts are inclusive and effective.
Whether this effort becomes a blueprint for future peacebuilding or a controversial footnote in Middle East diplomacy remains uncertain — but with the Board’s first official meeting fast approaching, the world will soon have more answers.
