Board of Peace is like a Trump company

At the inaugural meeting of the Board of Peace, President Donald Trump announced that nine member countries had pledged $7 billion toward rebuilding Gaza — and that the United States would contribute $10 billion.

There is one glaring problem: Congress has not appropriated a single dollar for this commitment.

Under the Constitution, the power of the purse belongs to Congress. No matter how boldly announced, no $10 billion commitment exists without legislative approval. Yet the president presented the pledge as if the funds were already secured.

That is not diplomacy. That is theater.

Numbers don’t add up

Experts estimate rebuilding Gaza will cost roughly $70 billion — 10 times the amount reportedly pledged so far. Even the $7 billion cited by the president appears to represent preliminary commitments, not cash in hand, and details about timing, conditions, and oversight remain scarce.

We have seen this pattern before: impressive headline figures followed by murky details.

Meanwhile, at the height of the war, the president floated the idea that Gaza could become a luxury resort destination with grand hotels. For a region devastated by war, displacement, and humanitarian crisis, such rhetoric sounds less like reconstruction policy and more like a development prospectus.

A chairman for life

The structure of the Board itself raises even more troubling questions.

Under its charter, President Trump is not simply chairing the Board during his term in office — he holds a lifetime seat and continuing leadership authority. That means long after voters have weighed in on his presidency, he would retain influence over an international body directing billions in reconstruction funds.

Lifetime control. International scope. No congressional authorization. This is not how American governance is designed to function.

Who Is Accountable?

The Board’s ambitions reportedly extend beyond Gaza. The president has suggested it could oversee broader global peace efforts and even ensure that the United Nations “runs properly.”

Where are the guardrails?

How will Hamas be disarmed?

What guarantees exist regarding Israel’s security?

Who audits the funds?

What prevents political favoritism or pay-to-play influence?

And perhaps most fundamentally: Who authorized this?

Congress has not appropriated funds. The Senate has not ratified a treaty. Yet sweeping financial and diplomatic commitments are being made in America’s name.

Peace or branding?

Americans are entitled to ask whether this initiative is truly about peace — or whether it resembles something else entirely: a centralized development enterprise built around one man’s grand promises, and global branding.

The United States can and should play a constructive role in stabilizing conflict zones. But that role must be rooted in constitutional process, fiscal transparency, and democratic accountability.

Before billions are pledged overseas, Americans deserve answers:

Where exactly would the $10 billion come from?

When will Congress vote?

What oversight exists?

Why does the president retain lifetime control?

Peace requires legitimacy. And legitimacy requires accountability.

Without it, the Board of Peace risks looking less like a diplomatic breakthrough — and more like another Trump development venture operating on the global stage.

Linda Schreiber lives in Iowa City.