WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s ambitious plan to establish a ‘Board of Peace’ for resolving the Israel-Hamas conflict initially gained momentum with UN Security Council endorsement, positioning him as a self-proclaimed ‘president of peace’ entering 2026. However, the initiative now faces significant challenges following controversial military and diplomatic actions during January’s opening weeks.
The administration’s simultaneous moves to threaten force against NATO ally Denmark over Greenland sovereignty and order the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro have created diplomatic fractures. These actions have particularly alarmed European partners, with fewer than 10 of over 60 invitations to join the Board of Peace being accepted—mostly by leaders considered anti-democratic authoritarians.
Key European nations including Britain, France and Germany have expressed reservations or declined participation entirely. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot explicitly rejected the proposed organization, stating France would not support any body designed to replace the United Nations. The inclusion of invitations to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has further heightened concerns among Western allies.
The situation escalated when Trump threatened tariffs against European allies supporting Denmark, followed by provocative social media posts about seizing Greenland. In one notable exchange, Trump accused Norway’s government of blocking the Nobel committee from awarding him the Peace Prize, signaling a shift away from diplomatic priorities.
According to defense expert Matthew Schmidt of the University of New Haven, these apparently separate issues are fundamentally interconnected in their impact on U.S. foreign policy credibility. The administration is now reportedly considering a scaled-back launch at Davos to avoid diplomatic embarrassment, potentially signing the charter while delaying membership announcements until later in January.
The compounding controversies have created unprecedented challenges for NATO cohesion and threatened to undermine both the Gaza ceasefire process and potential negotiations regarding Ukraine, demonstrating how unilateral actions can jeopardize multilateral peace initiatives.