U.S. President Donald Trump proposes to make the soon-to-be-established Board of Peace – an international body authorised by the UN Security Council to oversee Gaza’s administration and reconstruction – into a permanent club to deal with a wider range of conflicts. Its members are expected to convene their inaugural meeting on the margins of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

A draft of the Board’s charter outlines an international organisation claiming the authority to “promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict”. The document makes no mention of the UN Charter or the Security Council resolution that authorised the Board’s creation, for a term expiring in November 2027, and opens by disparaging existing peacemaking institutions.

Unlike the UN Charter, which authorises the Security Council to make decisions that legally bind all UN member states, the draft Board of Peace text is silent about any such powers. Nevertheless, the Board’s self-appointed role in international peace and security would encroach on the Council’s responsibilities.

Trump would serve as the Board’s chair and U.S. representative, overseeing a group of countries that he nominates for three-year terms. At least 60 countries, including the Security Council’s other permanent members, have received an invitation to join. Any member could buy a permanent seat in exchange for a $1 billion investment. An Executive Board, also chosen by Trump, would implement decisions taken by the member states; country-specific Boards would sit below this structure. The White House announced the first members of both the Executive Board and the Gaza-specific configuration on Friday.

U.S. officials have told journalists that the new entity is not meant to replace the UN completely. As chair, Trump would wield nearly unchecked veto power throughout the organisation, in effect cutting out the other veto-wielding Security Council members.

The Board transposes Trump’s transactional approach to diplomacy onto a formal institution that the U.S. could guide less encumbered by the preferences of states that might challenge it. Countries weighing invitations to join the Board might see it as a way to bolster their influence on the world stage and curry favour with the U.S. president. Many member states, however, see it as a power grab.

It is unclear who among prospective members will be willing to ratify the Board’s charter or invest in its operations. Israeli ministers are already questioning the involvement of Qatar and Türkiye in the Board’s oversight of Gaza. Countries may inevitably contest or simply disregard any of the Board’s decisions beyond Gaza if not backed by a separate Security Council resolution.

This move also could weaken Trump’s hand at the UN. In the past year, U.S. diplomats secured political and financial concessions from the organisation. But those gains, including some earned through bargaining with China and Russia, rested on the notion that the U.S. holds some residual value in the UN. That now looks like wishful thinking.