Board of Peace unveils $5B Gaza pledges at first meeting

What the Board of Peace is and its stated Gaza authority

The Board of Peace is a U.S.-led initiative announced in late January 2026 to oversee Gaza reconstruction, governance, the disarmament of Hamas, and longer-term peace efforts, according to Al Jazeera. Its framing places reconstruction at the center while linking security, administration, and funding under a single coordinating body. The stated remit is operational rather than treaty-based, and remains separate from formal UN organs.

United Nations officials have underscored that their authorized role is limited to what the UN Security Council has approved for Gaza, and they reject any suggestion that the Board replaces the UN’s broader mandate, as reported by Military.com. That distinction matters for legitimacy, access, and humanitarian coordination. In practice, the Board’s claims of authority in Gaza will hinge on alignment with existing Security Council decisions and cooperation with on-the-ground agencies.

Why this first Washington meeting matters now

The first leaders’ meeting is scheduled for February 19, 2026, in Washington and will be held at the U.S. Institute of Peace building, which the administration seized from a nonprofit think tank, as reported by The Philadelphia Inquirer. The venue itself has become part of the story because of unresolved control and governance questions. Holding an inaugural in such a contested space adds legal and reputational risk.

A U.S. court has already ruled the takeover of the U.S. Institute of Peace illegal, according to CBS News. That ruling does not automatically halt meetings but introduces uncertainty over institutional status, stewardship, and recordkeeping. Any decisions taken in this setting may face additional scrutiny.

Diplomatically, the Washington gathering is a test of whether the Board will complement multilateral frameworks or be seen as an alternative to them. Rights groups and legal analysts are weighing the composition of the body, its decision rules, and the absence or presence of affected communities. Those considerations are central to how donors, peacekeepers, and aid agencies calibrate participation.

“a club of impunity, not peace,” said Louis Charbonneau, Human Rights Watch.

Gaza reconstruction pledges, stabilisation force, and immediate reactions

Donald Trump is set to unveil a Gaza reconstruction plan alongside details for a UN‑authorised stabilisation force at the Washington meeting, as reported by the Financial Times. The aim presented publicly is to bundle funding commitments with security guarantees. Any stabilisation mechanism would still need clear command, rules of engagement, and human-rights safeguards to function.

Pledges of about $5 billion for Gaza reconstruction are set to be announced at the first meeting, and Indonesia commits up to 8,000, according to the Los Angeles Times. Organizers have framed these figures as initial commitments subject to verification and disbursement schedules. Delivery will depend on access, project vetting, and deconfliction with existing UN and NGO pipelines.

Israeli officials have voiced concerns, with Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich calling the plan “bad for Israel” and the prime minister’s office noting it was not consulted on key elements, as reported by The Washington Post. Such objections point to potential friction over border security, demilitarization benchmarks, and who supervises civil administration. Early alignment with Israeli and Palestinian authorities would likely shape the feasibility of any on-the-ground rollout.

Membership, costs, and who’s in or out so far

Permanent membership reportedly requires a $1 billion contribution, a model some observers describe as pay‑to‑participate, as reported by KTVZ. The funding threshold could concentrate decision-making among wealthier states and donors. It may also complicate efforts to include civil-society oversight or independent audit functions.

Among early joiners, Hungary has publicly praised participation as an honor, according to Yahoo News. That endorsement signals interest from some governments in a tighter, donor‑led coordination forum. It also illustrates the Board’s appeal to states that favor intergovernmental deals outside traditional UN committees.

Several European governments have taken a different view: France and Norway have declined to join, Italy has raised constitutional‑compatibility questions, and Ireland has stressed adherence to international law and existing multilaterals, as reported by KEYT. Their positions reflect concern about mandate overlap and legal risk. Divergence within Europe could shape broader G7 and EU engagement.

Critics also note that Palestinian representatives are reportedly absent from key panels overseeing governance and reconstruction, according to The New Arab. Exclusion would undercut local ownership and complicate accountability frameworks. Inclusion pathways and rights‑monitoring provisions remain central tests for credibility.

At the time of this writing, Trump Media & Technology Group Corp. (DJT) traded around $11.05 after hours, up about 0.64%, with an intraday range of $10.83–$11.30, based on Nasdaq real‑time price data. These figures are contextual and do not imply any view on the company’s prospects or on policy outcomes linked to the Board of Peace.