US President Donald Trump convened the first Washington meeting of his newly created “Board of Peace” on 19 February 2026, presenting it as a forum to drive post-war stabilisation in Gaza while signalling that it could later be used to address other international conflicts.
The meeting, held at the former US Institute of Peace headquarters, brought together representatives from more than 45 countries, though many key US allies attended at reduced level or not at all.
The Board of Peace traces its formal international standing to UN Security Council Resolution 2803, adopted on 17 November 2025, which welcomed Trump’s “Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict” and envisaged a Board of Peace role in oversight and coordination connected to Gaza’s post-war arrangements. The resolution also authorised an international stabilisation framework and referenced transitional civil governance arrangements for the territory.
At the Washington meeting, Trump framed the board as a mechanism able to “deliver peace” by convening leaders and mobilising money, starting with Gaza. According to Reuters, draft materials previously seen by the agency described an intention to begin with Gaza and then expand the board’s remit to “other conflicts”.
The immediate focus, however, remained Gaza. Trump announced a US contribution of $10 billion and said member states were providing additional funds for reconstruction and humanitarian support, with Reuters listing pledges from Gulf states and other participants. Separate reporting by the Associated Press said the amounts discussed remained far below estimates for full reconstruction needs.
Beyond funding, the meeting highlighted unresolved operational questions. A central plank of Trump’s Gaza plan is the demilitarisation of Hamas, but multiple analyses and reporting on the board’s agenda note that how this would be achieved remains unclear, particularly in the absence of an agreed political settlement and with continuing security concerns.
The governance element has also advanced unevenly. The White House plan set out the establishment of a technocratic committee intended to oversee restoration of public services and civil institutions in Gaza as part of transitional arrangements. Independent policy commentary has described this committee as critical to post-war governance, but it has faced practical constraints, including questions about authority and conditions on the ground.
Participation at the meeting underscored the board’s contested international reception. France publicly questioned the European Commission’s decision to send Mediterranean Commissioner Dubravka Šuica as an observer, arguing that the Commission lacked a mandate to represent EU member states. Reuters also reported that the UK and Germany sent ambassadors rather than leaders, while other European states chose low-level representation or stayed away.
EU Commission takes observer seat at US-led Gaza reconstruction board
The Holy See declined to take part. In his remarks Cardinal Pietro Parolin said the Vatican would not participate, adding that crisis management should “above all” be handled by the United Nations.
Israel’s attendance was also notable for the absence of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Israeli media reported that Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar represented Israel at the Washington session.
Kazakhstan’s President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev used the meeting to propose an award bearing Trump’s name, presented as a “Board of Peace” prize recognising contributions to ending wars and conflicts. Kazakh and regional outlets reported the proposal as part of Tokayev’s address in Washington.
One of the most practical controversies surrounding the board emerged from the handling of invitations. Belarus said it had been invited to attend but that members of its delegation did not receive US visas. Reuters reported Minsk’s claim that visa issuance failed despite what it described as proper procedures, raising questions about how the board’s political outreach would operate alongside existing US government restrictions.
The gap between Trump’s ambitions and the board’s current mandate remains a central issue. The UN resolution anchoring the initiative is tied to Gaza, yet Trump’s own messaging has pointed to broader use. Whether the board can move beyond Gaza may depend on whether it can deliver measurable outcomes there first—on security arrangements, governance, and reconstruction—while persuading sceptical allies that it complements rather than competes with existing multilateral structures.
First published on euglobal.news.
