In its stated aims, the initiative is meant to promote stability, restore legitimate governments, and ensure lasting peace in conflict-affected regions. However, the concept has quickly become a symbol of a U.S. imperial strategy, rooted in hard political, economic, and military dominance. Its creation has sparked controversy, and its links to ongoing crises, from Greenland to Syria, underscore the broader context of Washington’s global ambitions.
Signing ceremony of the Peace Council charter by Donald Trump and the leaders of the remaining 19 countries during the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 22, 2026 / Photo: Administration of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan (president.az)
The origins of the Peace Council date back to late 2025, when Donald Trump, after returning to the White House, began promoting a vision of an alternative to multilateralism, which he viewed as outdated and ineffective. The core objective is to resolve global conflicts in a bold and effective manner, free from the bureaucratic constraints of the United Nations. The structure is intended to oversee demilitarized zones, such as Gaza, described in documents as a buffer zone. Membership requires voluntary financial contributions, with a suggested amount of 1 billion USD for a permanent seat, highlighting the elite nature of the council and its emphasis on commitment to peace, security, and prosperity. This initiative fits into Trump’s broader policy framework, in which U.S. hegemony is pursued through economic pressure (such as tariffs on Europe) and military leverage (including threats of intervention in Greenland or Iran), compelling compliance from both allies and rivals. The Council is intended to serve as a tool for consolidating peace in the Middle East, but its remit could expand to other conflicts, such as Syria or Ukraine, with Trump as chairman for life. This, in turn, raises concerns about the colonial character of the structure – especially given provisions allowing it to designate its own successor.
The structure of the Peace Council is hierarchical and centered on Donald Trump’s key allies. Invitations were sent to leaders from France (Emmanuel Macron), Germany (Friedrich Merz), Argentina (Javier Milei), Paraguay (Santiago Peña), Turkey (Recep Tayyip Erdoğan), Egypt (Abdel Fattah el-Sisi), the European Union (Ursula von der Leyen), Jordan (King Abdullah II), Australia, Canada, as well as Uzbekistan, Morocco, Vietnam, Thailand, and others. Several countries, including Argentina, Egypt, Turkey, Uzbekistan, and Morocco, have confirmed their acceptance, while Canada is reportedly planning to join. At the top of the Council is to be an 11-member Executive Committee, responsible for overseeing ceasefire zones. Its membership includes prominent figures such as Tony Blair (former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom), Jared Kushner (Trump’s son-in-law), Marco Rubio (U.S. Secretary of State), Steve Witkoff (Trump adviser), Marc Rowan (CEO of Apollo Global Management), Ajay Banga (President of the World Bank), Robert Gabriel (Deputy U.S. National Security Adviser), Hakan Fidan (Foreign Minister of Turkey), Ali Al-Thani (Qatari diplomat), Sigrid Kaag (Minister of the United Arab Emirates), Reem Al-Hashimy (UAE Minister), Nickolay Mladenov (former UN envoy), Yakir Gabay (Romanian-Cypriot billionaire), as well as others such as Hassan Rashad (head of Egyptian intelligence). A 15-member technocratic committee, chaired by Ali Shad, is tasked with managing day-to-day operations. The absence of representation from key parties, such as Israel or the Palestinians, underscores the asymmetrical nature of the Council and has led to accusations of bias. The secrecy surrounding the Council’s full composition, Trump initially declined to disclose all names, has only reinforced claims that the Peace Council is intended as a tool to advance the president’s personal ambitions rather than a genuinely neutral mechanism for conflict resolution.
Peace Council logo / Graphic: Board of Peace via X
An invitation to join the Peace Council was also extended to the President of the Republic of Poland, Karol Nawrocki, whose contacts with his American counterpart are well known and regarded as cordial. The information was confirmed by Marcin Przydacz, Head of the Presidential Bureau of International Policy.
At a press conference, he stated that his office had submitted a formal request to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs seeking an expert opinion on the invitation extended to the Polish president by Donald Trump. At the same time, the Prime Minister informed that, in accordance with Article 89 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, Poland’s accession to an international organization requires the approval of the Council of Ministers and ratification by the Sejm of the Republic of Poland.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk stated on X: “Poland’s accession to an international organization requires the consent of the Council of Ministers and ratification by the Sejm. The government will be guided solely by the interests and security of the Polish state. And we will not allow anyone to outmaneuver us.”
Przystąpienie Polski do organizacji międzynarodowej wymaga zgody Rady Ministrów i ratyfikacji przez Sejm. Rząd kierować się będzie wyłącznie interesem i bezpieczeństwem państwa polskiego. I nikomu nie damy się rozegrać.
— Donald Tusk (@donaldtusk) January 19, 2026
In the context of Syria, the idea behind the creation of the Peace Council has been linked to the escalation of the conflict. An offensive by the Syrian Arab Army (formerly jihadist groups) toward Raqqa is pushing Kurdish forces east of the Euphrates, effectively violating the ceasefire. The lack of U.S. support for the Kurds is seen as confirmation that the Council is intended to focus on an American-style management of zones, while disregarding local interests. President Trump is reportedly considering intervention in the region, but the Middle East remains the top priority. It is there that the Council’s activities are expected to concentrate on overseeing the demilitarization of Hamas and implementing a 20-point peace plan for Gaza, backed by UN Security Council Resolution 2803 of November 2025.
China, criticizing the concept of the Peace Council as a tool of U.S. dominance, has advised the European Union to avoid a trade confrontation with the United States. At the same time, Beijing views the new organization as an opportunity to weaken the North Atlantic Alliance, encouraging Europe to pursue greater independence from the United States. According to analysts, Beijing’s overarching political objective toward Europe is to neutralize its role in the intensifying U.S.–China rivalry. From China’s perspective, it is particularly important to prevent NATO consolidation and the development of a coherent transatlantic technology policy. In the short term, Beijing seeks to block Trump’s efforts to establish a strategic cordon against China, which it attempts to counter by embedding policy provisions detrimental to Chinese interests into Washington’s bilateral and multilateral agreements with partners, including the EU. Among China’s key economic goals toward Europe is maintaining broad access to the European market, which is critical for absorbing Chinese industrial overcapacity. Consequently, a symbolically important issue for Beijing in relations with the EU remains the lifting of tariffs on electric vehicles manufactured in China.
International reactions to the idea of establishing the Peace Council have been deeply divided, reflecting the growing polarization of the global order. In the Middle East, Donald Trump’s proposal has sparked outrage due to the absence of Palestinian representation, leading to protests and accusations of a diplomatic failure. The office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has opposed the participation of Turkey and Qatar, arguing that the Council runs counter to Israel’s policy interests. European leaders such as Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer have condemned tariffs and threats, while the European Union is considering deploying a so-called “trade bazooka”, either tariffs worth up to 93 billion EUR or restrictions on U.S. companies, as well as the suspension of the EU–U.S. trade agreement through the use of the Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI). This mechanism is designed to protect EU member states from economic pressure and serves as both a deterrent and a response tool against deliberate actions by third countries that use trade measures to influence EU political choices or those of its members. Potential measures could include tariffs, new taxes on technology companies, restricted access to parts of the EU market, or limiting U.S. access to public procurement. German media have described U.S. actions as a tariff war, calling for a firm response, while Denmark has declared it will not give in to blackmail. Iran, under the leadership of Ali Khamenei, has accused Donald Trump of imperialism. Invitations to the Council extended to controversial figures such as Viktor Orbán, Alexander Lukashenko, and Vladimir Putin have generated further outrage. Russia itself is losing influence in Syria and Armenia, weakening its international position and pushing the Kremlin toward closer alignment with China. Any potential Russian accession to the Council could be motivated by a desire to partially reduce its dependence on Beijing, the main buyer of Russian raw materials, especially after Moscow was forced to sign agreements on unfavorable terms. Palestinians have raised the alarm, warning that the creation of a Peace Council without their representatives risks establishing a new colonial mandate.
In broader terms, the Peace Council represents an attempt to construct a new security architecture in which the United States dominates through hard power, sidelining multilateralism. Closely tied to Donald Trump’s personal ambitions, including resentment over not receiving a Nobel Peace Prize, the initiative is meant to signal to Moscow and Beijing the effectiveness of the American approach. As of January 2026, the Council remains in a formative phase, with many details still undisclosed, yet its impact on the global order is already being felt: strain within NATO over Greenland, the further isolation of Russia, and trade confrontation with China. Whether this marks the beginning of an era of U.S. unilateralism or a diplomatic failure remains to be seen. However, amid escalating tensions, the Peace Council may become a catalyst for further conflicts, rather than a genuine instrument of peace.
See also: