Trump's Gaza Peace Panel Explained: Is $1bn the New Price of Participation?

President Donald Trump's administration has linked permanent membership of the so-called Board of Peace to a $1 billion (£810 million) contribution, a proposal that could reshape how global reconstruction efforts are financed and who gets to influence them. The initiative has drawn scrutiny from diplomats and aid experts over its unprecedented price tag for long-term participation on the international peace body tasked with Gaza's post-war governance.

The core of the controversy comes from a draft charter circulated to dozens of nations. According to the document, countries may serve on the Board of Peace for up to three years without paying a fee, but that time limit 'shall not apply to Member States that contribute more than $1 billion in cash funds' within the first year, effectively granting them extended influence. The Board is envisioned as an international organisation tasked with promoting stability, restoring governance, and securing peace in conflict-affected areas, beginning with post-war Gaza.

Billion Dollar Proposal

President Trump is slated to chair the body and select its members, giving the United States considerable sway over who sits at the table and for how long. Proponents argue the fee could help ensure that the Board has significant resources to fund Gaza's rebuilding effort, which will be both massive and urgent after years of conflict.

Yet the proposal leaves open critical questions about how the $1 billion per country would be spent and who ultimately controls those funds. Whilst reports suggest the money would support reconstruction, official documents have not clarified how the funds are allocated.

For war-torn communities in Gaza, the stakes are high. Reconstruction will require not only financial backing but also inclusive governance that reflects Palestinian voices and needs, not just those of wealthy partners. Critics say tying influence to financial might risks sidelining local priorities.

International Response

Already, the plan has drawn scepticism from key allies. Israel's government, a close partner of the United States, criticised the Board's formation and claimed it was not coordinated with Jerusalem. Some countries invited to join the Board have expressed interest, but few have publicly endorsed the $1 billion condition.

Invitations have gone to nations including Canada, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Greece, Cyprus, Pakistan, Argentina and Hungary, among others. The White House has pushed back on criticism of the payment requirement, calling reporting of a strict fee 'misleading' and framing the financial commitment as an option for partner countries that show a 'deep commitment to peace, security and prosperity.'

Pay-to-Play Concerns

Supporters of the Board's structure argue the initiative could break new ground in global peacebuilding, offering an alternative to traditional multilateral organisations that have been hampered by bureaucracy and political gridlock. Yet detractors see the $1 billion threshold as emblematic of a pay-to-play mentality, where influence is tied to wealth rather than commitment or moral leadership.

For poorer nations, this could mean exclusion from meaningful decision-making on the region's future. Humanitarian organisations have also raised concerns that urgent relief and social services should not be overshadowed by geopolitical manoeuvring.

The Board of Peace has not yet formally convened, and it may take months before its structure, mandate, and membership are finalised. Whether the $1 billion proposal remains a central pillar or evolves into a more flexible model will shape not just who sits at the table, but how reconstruction and peace efforts proceed in Gaza and potentially beyond.

For now, the debate continues: Is the price of participation too high — or a necessary investment in lasting peace?