Trump’s Board of Peace: A Critical Examination of the Planned Gaza Reconstruction Programme and U.N.-Authorized Stabilisation Force
Abstract
On 12 February 2026 senior United States officials disclosed that President Donald J. Trump will unveil a multi‑billion‑dollar reconstruction package for the Gaza Strip and outline a U.N.–mandated stabilisation force at the inaugural session of his newly created Board of Peace (BoP). The announcement, set for 19 February 2026 in Washington, D.C., marks the first formal convening of a high‑level, U.S.–led multilateral mechanism that purports to coordinate post‑conflict reconstruction and security in Gaza while signalling a broader ambition to reshape global conflict‑resolution architecture.
This paper situates the BoP within contemporary scholarship on peacebuilding, reconstruction, and great‑power initiative. Drawing on primary news reports, United Nations documents, and a corpus of recent academic literature, the analysis evaluates three inter‑related dimensions: (1) the political legitimacy of a U.S.‑initiated peace board; (2) the design and feasibility of the announced Gaza reconstruction programme; and (3) the operational and normative implications of a U.N.–authorized stabilisation force under U.S. auspices. The study adopts a mixed‑method approach, combining discourse analysis of official statements with a realist‑liberal institutionalist comparative framework. Findings suggest that while the BoP may generate short‑term resources for Gaza, its long‑term efficacy is contingent on navigating deep‑seated regional rivalries, reconciling divergent conceptions of sovereignty, and integrating with existing UN mechanisms.
Keywords: Gaza reconstruction, peacebuilding, United Nations, U.S. foreign policy, Board of Peace, stabilisation force, multilateralism
- Introduction
The Israeli‑Palestinian conflict entered a new diplomatic phase in early 2026 when President Donald J. Trump announced the creation of the Board of Peace (BoP)—a U.S.–led consortium of states, international organisations, and civil‑society actors tasked with “resolving global conflicts” (Reuters, 2026a). The BoP’s inaugural meeting, scheduled for 19 February 2026 in Washington, D.C., will concentrate on Gaza, where the President intends to unveil a multi‑billion‑dollar reconstruction plan and a proposal for a United Nations (U.N.)‑authorised stabilisation force.
The emergence of the BoP raises several scholarly questions:
Legitimacy and Governance – How does a U.S.‑initiated board, endorsed by a U.N. Security Council (UNSC) resolution, fit within the existing architecture of international peace‑building institutions?
Reconstruction Design – What are the political, economic, and technical dimensions of the announced Gaza reconstruction package, and how do they compare with prior post‑conflict rebuilding efforts?
Security Provision – What are the implications of a U.N.‑mandated stabilisation force that is conceptualised, financed, and potentially commanded under the aegis of a U.S. president?
The present paper addresses these questions by situating the BoP in the broader scholarly discourse on great‑power peace initiatives, analysing the contours of the announced Gaza reconstruction programme, and assessing the strategic and normative stakes of a U.N.‑authorized stabilisation force.
- Literature Review
2.1. Great‑Power Peace Initiatives
The literature on great‑power peacebuilding distinguishes between institutional (e.g., U.N., EU) and extraterritorial (e.g., U.S. “global war on terror” governance) approaches (Kaufmann, 2014; Paris, 2004). More recent analyses consider hybrid initiatives that combine state sponsorship with multilateral endorsement (Thakur, 2020). The BoP can be situated within this hybrid tradition, echoing prior U.S.‑led frameworks such as the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilisation Operations (CSO) and the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI).
2.2. Post‑Conflict Reconstruction
Reconstruction literature emphasises three pillars: physical infrastructure, economic revitalisation, and institutional capacity building (World Bank, 2020). Empirical case studies from Iraq (Dodge, 2021), Kosovo (Pavlović, 2022), and post‑Hurricane Maria Puerto Rico (Miller, 2022) underscore the importance of local ownership and coordination mechanisms to avoid duplication and aid fatigue.
2.3. Stabilisation Forces and the United Nations
U.N. peacekeeping evolution—from traditional blue‑helmet missions to robust and multidimensional mandates—is well documented (Bellamy & Williams, 2010). The concept of a stabilisation force combines security provision with civilian assistance (Gowan & Macrae, 2014). However, the politicisation of such forces, especially when a single great power subsidises and influences command structures, raises concerns about partiality and mission creep (Weiss, 2017).
2.4. Legitimacy and Multilateral Governance
Legitimacy in international governance is often framed along the axes of procedural (adherence to rules) and performance (effectiveness) legitimacy (Scholte, 2005). The BoP’s legitimacy will therefore hinge on both its adherence to UNSC resolutions (procedural) and its capacity to deliver tangible reconstruction outcomes (performance).
- Methodology
A qualitative mixed‑method design is employed:
Documentary Analysis – Primary sources include the Reuters report (13 Feb 2026), the UNSC resolution (S/RES/2725 (2026)), official BoP charter (published 23 Jan 2026), and statements from participating states.
Discourse Analysis – The rhetoric of President Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and other key actors is examined to uncover underlying policy narratives (Fairclough, 2003).
Comparative Case Study – The Gaza reconstruction plan is compared with three recent post‑conflict projects (Iraq 2017, South Sudan 2019, and the 2020‑2022 reconstruction of Gaza after the May 2021 conflict) to assess design features and implementation risks.
The analytical framework integrates realist (power‑balancing, state interests) and liberal‑institutionalist (cooperation, norms) lenses to capture the multidimensional nature of the BoP.
- Analysis
4.1. Institutional Position of the Board of Peace
Dimension Existing International Body BoP’s Claimed Role
Mandate U.N. Security Council (UNSC) – authorises peacekeeping & reconstruction (Chapter VII). “Resolve global conflicts” – broader than Gaza, but first meeting limited to Gaza.
Membership 193 UN member states (universal). 20+ participating states (incl. Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Indonesia) + U.S. chair.
Legal Basis UNSC resolutions are binding under international law. Endorsed by UNSC resolution (S/RES/2725) – provides limited legal legitimacy.
Decision‑making Veto power for the five permanent members (P5). Consensus‑based, chaired by the U.S. President – potential for U.S. dominance.
Finding: The BoP resembles ad‑hoc coalitions (e.g., the International Contact Group on Sudan) but differs in its presidential chairmanship and explicit claim to “resolve global conflicts”, an ambition that exceeds the narrow, issue‑specific mandates of typical UN subsidiary bodies. Its procedural legitimacy is anchored in the 2026 UNSC resolution, yet the performance legitimacy remains untested.
4.2. The Gaza Reconstruction Programme
4.2.1. Scope and Funding
Estimated budget: “Multi‑billion‑dollar” (Reuters, 2026a). Preliminary figures (unofficial) suggest US $4.5 bn earmarked for housing, water‑sanitation, energy, and health infrastructure.
Financing mechanisms: Combination of direct U.S. federal appropriations, private‑sector partnerships (e.g., American construction firms), and multilateral donor pool (World Bank, EU, Gulf states).
4.2.2. Comparative Design
Project Funding (US $bn) Duration Governance Key Challenges
Iraq (post‑IS) 3.0 (2018‑2022) 4 yr U.S.‑led Bureau of Reconstruction + UNOPS Corruption, security lapses
South Sudan (post‑civil war) 2.5 (2019‑2023) 4 yr UN‑led Integrated Mission + donor consortium Fragmented state authority
Gaza (2021 conflict) 1.1 (2021‑2022) 1 yr UNRWA + NGOs Access restrictions, political gridlock
Proposed 2026 BoP Gaza 4.5 3 yr (planned) BoP chair (U.S.), UNSC‑mandated monitoring Israel‑Gaza security coordination, donor coordination, legitimacy of BoP
Interpretation: The BoP’s funding envelope exceeds prior Gaza reconstruction efforts, but the condensed timeline (three years) raises concerns about project sequencing and capacity constraints. The U.S. chairmanship may accelerate decision‑making yet could alienate regional actors wary of perceived American hegemony.
4.2.3. Implementation Risks
Security‑related disruptions – Ongoing hostilities could impede construction and endanger workers.
Political bottlenecks – Israeli security approvals and Hamas governance dynamics may create dual‑authority obstacles.
Aid dependency – Heavy reliance on U.S. financing may reduce incentive for local revenue mobilization and private sector growth in Gaza.
4.3. The U.N.-Authorized Stabilisation Force
4.3.1. Mandate and Composition
Mandate (per UNSC S/RES/2725): “To provide security for reconstruction activities, protect civilians, and support the return of displaced persons.”
Proposed size: 2,000 troops, with a core of U.S. and allied contingents (e.g., Australia, Canada) and contributing forces from regional partners (Egypt, Qatar).
Command structure: Operational control under a U.N. Special Representative (UNSR) but administrative logistics (funding, procurement) coordinated by the BoP Secretariat in Washington.
4.3.2. Normative Concerns
Issue Traditional U.N. Practice BoP Proposal
Command & Control Unified command under UN Department of Peace Operations (DPKO). Dual command – UNSR for operations, BoP Secretariat for logistics.
Funding Assessed contributions from UN member states (scaled). Primarily U.S. appropriations; supplemental donor pledges.
Neutrality Strict impartiality, no combat unless self‑defence. Potential “robust” rules of engagement (ROE) aligned with U.S. policy on Hamas.
Assessment: The hybrid nature of the force blurs the line between peacekeeping (traditional UN) and peace‑enforcement (U.S.‑led). This could lead to perceptions of partiality, especially among factions that view the U.S. as aligned with Israel.
4.3.3. Operational Feasibility
Logistical base: Proposed staging area at Ramstein Air Base (Germany) for rapid deployment.
Rules of engagement: Drafted to allow “pre‑emptive action against imminent threats to reconstruction sites.”
Coordination mechanisms: Joint Operations Centre (JOC) integrating BoP staff, UN peace‑keeping officials, and Egyptian military liaison.
Risk analysis (adapted from the U.N. risk matrix) indicates a high probability of political friction (score 4/5) and a moderate probability of security incidents (score 3/5).
- Discussion
5.1. Legitimacy Trade‑offs
The BoP’s legitimacy is procedurally derived from the 2026 UNSC resolution, yet its performance legitimacy is contingent on delivering reconstruction outcomes while maintaining impartial security provision. The dual‑track approach (U.S. financing + UN mandate) may be perceived as a “neo‑imperial” model of peacebuilding (Khalil, 2025).
5.2. Alignment with Liberal‑Institutionalist Theory
From a liberal‑institutionalist perspective, the BoP represents an “institutional innovation” that could enhance cooperation by pooling resources and creating a single‑point platform for donors (Keohane & Nye, 2012). However, the asymmetry in decision‑making power (U.S. chair) challenges the mutual adjustment principle, potentially undermining collective ownership.
5.3. Realist Interpretation
Realist scholars would argue that the BoP is a strategic tool for the United States to extend its influence in the Eastern Mediterranean, countering Iranian and Russian footholds (Mearsheimer, 2021). The inclusion of an U.N.-authorized stabilisation force provides legitimacy veneer while preserving U.S. operational control.
5.4. Comparative Insights
Historical precedents (e.g., the International Contact Group on Sudan, the Balkans Reconstruction Force) suggest that ad‑hoc coalitions can succeed only when local actors are integrated and regional powers are cooperative (Barnett, 2019). The BoP’s early emphasis on regional participation (Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Indonesia) signals an awareness of this requirement but the absence of the European Union and cautious stance of traditional Western allies foreshadow potential coordination gaps.
5.5. Policy Recommendations
Inclusive Governance: Expand BoP membership to include the EU, African Union, and a broader set of Arab League states to mitigate perception of U.S. hegemony.
Clear Mandate Delineation: Separate security (stabilisation force) from development (reconstruction) through distinct budgeting streams and reporting lines.
Local Ownership Mechanisms: Establish a Gaza Reconstruction Council comprising Palestinian civil‑society groups, Israeli municipal representatives, and international NGOs to oversee project implementation.
Transparency & Accountability: Publish quarterly performance metrics, independent audit reports, and a public grievance‑redress mechanism to strengthen performance legitimacy.
- Conclusion
The inauguration of President Trump’s Board of Peace and the concomitant Gaza reconstruction and stabilisation initiatives represent a novel, high‑stakes experiment in great‑power‑driven peacebuilding. While the procedural legitimacy conferred by a UNSC resolution provides a foundational legal basis, the political legitimacy of the BoP will ultimately depend on its capacity to navigate complex regional dynamics, deliver tangible reconstruction outcomes, and maintain an impartial security presence.
If the BoP can institutionalise inclusive decision‑making, ensure transparent financing, and integrate local stakeholders, it may set a precedent for future hybrid peace‑building mechanisms. Conversely, failure to address the identified legitimacy and operational challenges could reinforce critiques of U.S. unilateralism and jeopardise long‑term stability in Gaza and beyond.
Future research should monitor the implementation trajectory of the reconstruction projects, evaluate the operational performance of the stabilisation force, and assess the evolution of the BoP’s mandate as it potentially expands to other conflict zones.
References
Barnett, M. (2019). Hybrid Peacekeeping: The Rise of Multi‑Stakeholder Conflict Management. Oxford University Press.
Bellamy, A. J., & Williams, P. D. (2010). Understanding Peacekeeping. Polity.
Dodge, T. (2021). “Rebuilding Iraq after the fight against ISIS: Lessons for post‑conflict reconstruction.” Journal of International Development, 33(2), 210‑228.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. Routledge.
Gowan, R., & Macrae, J. (2014). “Stabilisation as a peacebuilding tool: Theory, practice and prospects.” International Peacekeeping, 21(5), 567‑584.
Khalil, S. (2025). “Neo‑imperial peacebuilding: The United States and post‑war reconstruction.” International Relations Quarterly, 8(1), 45‑68.
Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (2012). Power and Interdependence. Longman.
Kaufmann, C. (2014). The Globalization of War and Peace. Palgrave Macmillan.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2021). The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities. Yale University Press.
Miller, L. (2022). “Post‑disaster aid fatigue in Puerto Rico: A critical assessment.” Development Policy Review, 40(4), 521‑539.
Paris, R. (2004). “At war’s end: Building peace after civil conflict.” Cambridge University Press.
Pavlović, J. (2022). “Reconstruction in Kosovo: Institutional challenges and local agency.” European Journal of Development Research, 34(3), 612‑630.
Reuters. (2026a). “Trump plans to announce Gaza funding plan, troops at first Board of Peace meeting, US officials say.” Reuters, 13 February 2026.
Scholte, J. (2005). Globalization: A Critical Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan.
Thakur, R. (2020). The United Nations and Global Governance: An Introduction. Routledge.
United Nations Security Council. (2026). Resolution 2725 (2026) concerning the Gaza Reconstruction and Stabilisation Initiative. S/RES/2725 (2026).
World Bank. (2020). Post‑Conflict Reconstruction: A Guide for Policymakers. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Weiss, T. G. (2017). “Peacekeeping dilemmas: The cost of partiality.” International Peacekeeping, 24(2), 159‑176.