President Donald Trump’s newly created Board of Peace is set to hold its first meeting Thursday, with administration officials and participating countries framing the gathering as a step toward implementing the next phase of the Gaza ceasefire and reconstruction effort rather than a moment likely to deliver an immediate breakthrough.
At least 20 countries are expected to attend the inaugural session in Washington, where Trump is slated to chair discussions on a multi-billion-dollar reconstruction framework, humanitarian coordination and the deployment of an international stabilization force.
Trump unveiled the initiative at the World Economic Forum in Davos last month. Initial members include the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, Bahrain, Pakistan, Turkey, Israel, Hungary, Morocco, Kosovo, Albania, Bulgaria, Argentina, Paraguay, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Indonesia and Vietnam.
On Sunday, Trump said members of the initiative had already pledged $5 billion toward rebuilding Gaza and would commit personnel to international stabilization and policing efforts. ‘The Board of Peace will prove to be the most consequential international body in history, and it is my honor to serve as its Chairman,’ Trump wrote in a social media post announcing the commitments.
Italy’s foreign minister, Antonio Tajani, has announced a plan to train a future Gaza police force, while Indonesia has committed thousands of troops to a prospective international stabilization mission expected to deploy later this year.
The United Arab Emirates, a founding participant in the initiative, said it plans to continue its humanitarian engagement in Gaza.
‘The UAE remains committed to scaling up its humanitarian efforts to support Palestinians in Gaza and to advancing a durable peace between Israelis and Palestinians,’ the UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement, noting its role as a founding member of the Board of Peace and part of the Gaza Executive Board.
Even as Gulf and regional partners signal willingness to fund humanitarian needs, long-term reconstruction remains tied to security conditions on the ground.
Disarmament remains the central test
Analysts say the meeting’s significance will hinge less on headline announcements and more on whether participants align on the unresolved core issue shaping Gaza’s future: Hamas’ disarmament.
Ghaith al-Omari, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute, argued the meeting’s credibility will depend on whether participants coalesce around a clear position on disarmament. ‘Unless there is going to be a joint statement coming out of it that clearly says Hamas has to disarm — to me the meeting would be a failure,’ he said, because it would show ‘the U.S. cannot get everyone on the same page.’
Funding is also expected to dominate discussions, though diplomats and analysts caution that pledges may not translate quickly into large-scale reconstruction.
‘We’re going to see pledges,’ al-Omari told Fox News Digital, ‘with a footnote that a pledge does not always translate to deliverables,’ urging attention to which countries commit funds and whether the money is earmarked for humanitarian aid, stabilization or long-term rebuilding.
John Hannah, a senior fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), also cautioned that early financial pledges are unlikely to translate into immediate large-scale reconstruction. ‘I can’t imagine that much of that initial pledge or any of it is going to actual long-term or even medium-term reconstruction of Gaza. Just too many parties won’t support it, pending actual progress on the core question of disarmament and demilitarization of Hamas,’ he said.
Hannah added that the financing challenge remains enormous. ‘It’s been a major outstanding question: How are you going to fund this tremendous bill that is going to come due over the course of the next several years?’ he said. ‘I’ve been watching this now for 35 years, and if I had $100 for every time a major Arab country pledged support for the Palestinians but not delivered, I’d be a relatively wealthy man.’
Netanyahu signs on despite Turkey, Qatar tensions
The initiative has also highlighted political tensions surrounding Israel’s participation, particularly given the involvement of Turkey and Qatar.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signed on to the agreement last week during a meeting with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, placing Israel formally inside the framework despite earlier Israeli objections to Ankara and Doha playing a central role in Gaza’s future.
Hannah said Netanyahu’s decision reflects strategic calculations tied to Washington. ‘I think the prime minister doesn’t want to anger the president. He’s prioritizing his really good strategic relationship with Trump over this tactical difference over Turkey and Qatar,’ he said. ‘The prime minister is just making a basic calculation of where Israel’s interests lie here and trying to balance these competing factors.’
European allies raise legal concerns
Beyond Gaza, the initiative has sparked concern among European allies, many of whom have declined to join the board.
European officials told Fox News Digital the group’s charter raises legal and institutional questions and may conflict with the original U.N. framework that envisioned a Gaza-focused mechanism.
Speaking at the Munich Security Conference, European leaders argued the Board of Peace’s mandate appears to diverge from the U.N. Security Council resolution that initially supported a Gaza-specific body.
European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said the resolution envisioned a time-limited structure tied directly to Gaza and to the U.N., but that the board’s current charter no longer reflects those provisions. ‘The U.N. Security Council resolution provided for a Board of Peace for Gaza… it provided for it to be limited in time until 2027… and referred to Gaza, whereas the statute of the Board of Peace makes no reference to any of these things,’ she said. ‘So I think there is a Security Council resolution but the Board of Peace does not reflect it.’
In response, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz criticized what he described as excessive concern over the initiative and argued the status quo in Gaza was unsustainable, and attacked what he said was ‘hand-wringing’ about the Board of Peace — saying the cycle of war with Hamas in control had to be broken.
Not a replacement for the United Nations
Despite European unease, analysts say the Board of Peace is unlikely to replace the U.N. system.
Al-Omari dismissed the idea that the initiative poses a serious institutional challenge, arguing that major powers remain deeply invested in the existing multilateral structure.
Hannah agreed, saying the administration appears to view Thursday’s meeting primarily as incremental progress rather than any kind of major breakthrough. ‘The way the administration is looking at this is just another sign of continued progress and momentum, rather than any kind of major breakthrough,’ he concluded.