Trump Launches ‘Board of Peace’ Charter at Davos for Gaza Reconstruction: Ambitious Vision Draws Sharp Criticism and Ally Splits
In a high-profile ceremony on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on January 22, 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump formally signed the founding charter of his newly proposed “Board of Peace.” The initiative, which Trump chairs, was initially conceived to oversee the fragile Israel-Hamas ceasefire and coordinate the massive reconstruction of Gaza following more than two years of devastating conflict. However, the launch quickly expanded into broader ambitions, positioning the board as a potential global conflict-resolution mechanism that some critics fear could rival or undermine the United Nations.
Trump, holding up the signed charter for cameras, described the moment as “a very exciting day” and one that would make the Board of Peace “one of the most consequential bodies ever created.” He emphasized that the board would ensure a lasting peace in Gaza by demilitarizing Hamas, coordinating international aid, supporting security arrangements, and guiding long-term governance and development. The U.S. president invited dozens of nations to join, with permanent membership reportedly requiring a $1 billion contribution—a fee that has raised eyebrows about the initiative’s pay-to-play nature.
The signing was attended by representatives from several countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Hungary, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and others from the Middle East, South America, and beyond. Notably absent were major European allies and many traditional U.S. partners in NATO, who expressed reservations about the board’s scope, governance, and compatibility with existing multilateral institutions like the UN. European Council President Antonio Costa voiced “serious doubts” about elements of the charter, while diplomats from several capitals questioned whether the body could sideline the UN’s role in global diplomacy.
The ‘New Gaza’ Vision: Skyscrapers, Resorts, and a Futuristic Overhaul
A key highlight of the Davos event was a presentation by Trump’s son-in-law and senior advisor Jared Kushner, who unveiled detailed “master plan” slides for what officials termed “New Gaza.” The ambitious blueprint envisions transforming the war-ravaged territory—home to over 2 million Palestinians—into a gleaming Mediterranean hub. CGI renderings and maps depicted:
- Dozens (some reports cited up to 180) of skyscrapers lining the coastline, with terraced apartment towers, luxury residential districts, and a tree-lined promenade.
- New cities and neighborhoods, including phased redevelopment starting in Rafah and expanding northward.
- Industrial parks, data centers, agricultural zones, 100,000+ housing units, 75 medical facilities, an airport in the south near Egypt, and even seaside tourism resorts.
- A buffer zone along the Israeli border for security, treating much of the land as a “blank slate” for redevelopment.
Kushner described the plan as a $25 billion proposal with projected economic benefits, including a Gaza GDP potentially reaching $10 billion by 2035. He stressed that reconstruction would only proceed after full Hamas disarmament—starting with heavy weapons decommissioned zone by zone—and suggested incentives like amnesty, reintegration into a new Palestinian police force, or safe passage out for those who comply. Trump, a self-described “real estate person at heart,” praised the location: “Look at this beautiful piece of property on the sea. What it could be for so many people.”
The U.S. has pledged to host an upcoming donors’ conference to fund the effort, with the Board of Peace coordinating international assistance.
Exclusion of Palestinians and Mounting Criticism
Critics have pointed out a glaring omission: the plans appear to sideline direct Palestinian input or representation on the Board of Peace itself. No Palestinian Authority officials or Gaza-based representatives were involved in the Davos unveiling, and the charter does not explicitly guarantee Palestinian governance or property rights compensation for those displaced by the war. Palestinian territories remain devastated, with ongoing ceasefire violations—including reported strikes killing civilians—even as the board was launched.
The vision has drawn sharp backlash for its perceived disconnect from ground realities. Observers noted the futuristic slides ignored generations of Palestinian property claims, historical grievances, and the humanitarian crisis. Social media and analysts labeled it “grotesque” or profit-driven, with some accusing it of treating Gaza as real estate for redevelopment rather than a homeland for its people. European leaders, in particular, have withheld support, citing concerns over the board’s potential to rival the UN and its inclusion of controversial figures (Trump has invited leaders like Russia’s Vladimir Putin, though details remain unclear).
The launch also ties into Trump’s broader foreign policy push, including recent progress on Ukraine talks and Arctic strategies. Yet the Gaza focus has exposed transatlantic fractures, with some allies viewing the board as an “imperial court” centered on U.S. dominance and loyalty rather than consensus.
What’s Next for the Board and Gaza?
The Board of Peace’s immediate task is stabilizing the Gaza ceasefire and launching reconstruction, with a “high representative”—veteran UN diplomat Nickolay Mladenov—potentially overseeing on-the-ground efforts. Trump has hinted at expanding the board’s mandate beyond Gaza to other global conflicts, though he insists it will “work in conjunction with” the UN.
As delegations return from Davos, the initiative faces a critical test: Can it secure broader buy-in, deliver tangible aid amid fragile truce conditions, and address Palestinian aspirations? Or will divisions deepen, with the board seen more as a Trump-led alternative to established institutions?
For now, the charter is signed, the “New Gaza” vision is public, and the world watches closely. Trump declared the war “really coming to an end,” but on the ground in Gaza, peace and reconstruction remain distant prospects amid ongoing challenges and international skepticism. Whether this bold U.S.-led approach brings lasting stability—or further controversy—will unfold in the months ahead.
