Key allies France and Canada have pushed back against Donald Trump’s proposed Board of Peace, after details emerged that countries could secure permanent membership by paying US$1 billion.
According to the board’s draft charter seen by AFP, countries would normally serve three-year terms, unless they contribute more than US$1 billion in cash within the first year, in which case they would gain permanent status. The body would be chaired by Trump himself.
France: “Cannot accept”
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot told lawmakers that France “cannot accept” the proposal, arguing the board’s mandate goes beyond the UN-endorsed framework for post-war Gaza and is incompatible with France’s international commitments.
France is a permanent, veto-wielding member of the UN Security Council, alongside the United States, China, Russia and the UK.
Canada: No payment, no request
A Canadian government source said Ottawa will not pay to sit on the board and has not received any request to do so, even though Prime Minister Mark Carney had earlier indicated openness to participating.
Critics warn of “pay-to-play diplomacy”
Experts compared the proposal to a pay-to-play alternative to the UN Security Council, but with Trump holding outsized authority.
Paul Williams of George Washington University said the structure would effectively give Trump unilateral veto power. Analysts at International Crisis Group and the German Marshall Fund warned the model risks undermining multilateral institutions at a time when many countries are focused on preserving them.
UN response
The United Nations pushed back, stressing there is only one universal multilateral body responsible for global peace and security.
Trump has already named several figures to the board, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, former UK prime minister Tony Blair, envoy Steve Witkoff, and his son-in-law Jared Kushner. Israel has objected to elements of the proposed Gaza governance structure under the plan.
Overall, the cool reaction from Paris and Ottawa highlights growing unease among U.S. allies over a proposal many see as transactional diplomacy that challenges existing global institutions.