President Trump’s threats to seize Greenland and tariff European allies have undermined the U.N.-backed Board of Peace he had positioned to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction and address global conflicts, according to the White House and allied governments. The board, which received U.N. Security Council approval in late 2025, was set to launch this week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Instead, fewer than 10 of more than 60 invited world leaders have accepted, including Britain, France and Germany, which expressed skepticism about the initiative’s scope and composition.
The collapse in participation reflects a broader tension in Trump’s foreign policy approach. His simultaneous pursuit of territorial expansion and peace diplomacy has fractured the international consensus he had sought to lead, imperiling not only the Gaza board but broader efforts to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine and manage Middle Eastern conflicts.
In late 2025, President Trump ended a contentious year on a high note. The United Nations Security Council had endorsed his “Board of Peace,” a proposed forum to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction following the ceasefire agreement in the Israel-Hamas conflict. Trump positioned himself as a peacemaker and deal-maker, poised to expand the board’s mandate to address global conflicts from Ukraine to the Middle East.
By mid-January, that momentum had stalled. Trump’s threats to seize Greenland from NATO ally Denmark—coupled with tariffs against European nations defending the autonomous territory—collided directly with the board’s planned rollout. Major European powers began declining invitations, concerned about the chaos surrounding the initiative.
Board of Peace collapses before launch
The Board of Peace, set to be formally announced this week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, has stalled before it began. More than 60 invitations were sent to world leaders. Fewer than 10 have accepted.
Among those expressing hesitation or outright opposition: Britain, France, and Germany—the three Western powers whose participation was most crucial to the board’s credibility. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said he opposed creating “an organization as it has been presented, which would replace the United Nations.” A spokesman for British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Starmer harbored concerns about the board’s membership composition. German officials offered no public statement beyond saying they were reviewing the initiative’s terms.
The reluctance of America’s closest allies reflects both substantive and diplomatic concerns. The board’s current roster of acceptances includes leaders described as anti-democratic authoritarians. Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping, and Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko all received invitations, a development that prompted skepticism from Western governments about the board’s purpose.
Trump offered contradictory statements about the board’s relationship to the United Nations itself. At a White House news conference on Tuesday, he suggested the Board of Peace “might” replace the organization. Moments earlier, he had criticized the U.N. directly: “The United Nations never helped me on one war.”
Yet when asked whether the U.N. should continue to exist, Trump softened his position. “I believe you got to let the U.N. continue, because the potential is so great,” he said. The statement reflected an ongoing tension in the administration between those viewing the Board of Peace as a complement to the U.N. and those viewing it as a replacement.
Greenland overshadows the board
Trump’s Greenland rhetoric has dominated his recent statements and social media posts. He has made insulting remarks toward European leaders, accused Norway of blocking his Nobel Peace Prize nomination, and refused to rule out military or economic force to acquire the mineral-rich Arctic territory.
When asked at Tuesday’s news conference how far he would go to acquire Greenland, Trump demurred. “You’ll find out,” he said. Earlier, he offered slightly more measured language about NATO: “I think that we will work something out where NATO is going to be very happy and where we’re going to be very happy.”
U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, indicated the White House is exploring a strategy to salvage the announcement. Rather than unveil a full membership roster at Davos—risking embarrassment over tepid acceptance rates—Trump could sign the Board of Peace charter to establish the body formally, then delay announcing the complete membership list until later in January, allowing the Greenland furor to subside.
The approach would allow Trump to claim the board’s formal launch while deferring the question of which leaders ultimately participate. Administration officials described the maneuver as a way to give the diplomatic initiative time to settle before the political environment around Greenland changes.
Trump’s transactional approach
Matthew Schmidt, a defense expert at the University of New Haven who previously taught at the Army’s Command and General Staff College, said Trump’s simultaneous pursuit of territorial expansion and peace diplomacy reflects a pattern of viewing international initiatives as discrete transactions rather than as components of a coherent strategy.
“They’re not separate issues,” Schmidt said of Greenland and European support for Trump’s diplomatic agenda. “Donald Trump works in deals, and each deal is different and separate, and the point of each deal is to produce a win for Donald Trump. The president seems to be driven by a desire to be in control. If he can’t run it, then he will look to replace it.”
Schmidt said the tensions are likely to complicate not only the Board of Peace but also broader U.S. efforts to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine. “Who knows if the Board of Peace was a fever dream,” he added. “But it’s just completely, as we say too often, unprecedented.”