Trump’s U.S. pledge of $10B to new Board of Peace fuels funding source questions
At the newly renamed Donald J. Trump United States Institute of Peace, President Donald Trump announced a massive $10 billion U.S. commitment to the Board of Peace (BoP). However, the Thursday announcement has since fueled questions in relation to where the money will be coming from specifically.
The pledge, intended to anchor an international effort to rebuild the Gaza Strip, immediately drew scrutiny from Democrat lawmakers and even some conservative allies who argued that this could lead to a major “funding gap” in the administration’s fiscal plans.
Nonetheless, at the inaugural meeting on Thursday, Trump announced that nine other countries, including Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar, have pledged a combined $7 billion. He signaled that these specific funds are prioritized for immediate humanitarian needs — food, medicine, and temporary shelter — to stabilize the population, further characterizing the contributions from this group as a “relief package.”
Additionally, Trump noted that Japan has agreed to host a major fundraising event for Gaza relief/reconstruction under the Board of Peace, while Norway is slated to host a meeting of the Ad-Hoc Liaison Committee (AHLC) to discuss Palestinian aid in coordination with the United States.
The Norwegian Foreign Ministry later clarified on Thursday that they are not formally joining the Board of Peace as a member — only acting as a host for the dialogue.
Meanwhile, some conservative critics view the commitment as at odds with core “America First” principles, which emphasize prioritizing domestic needs, minimizing taxpayer-funded overseas engagements and insisting that wealthier allies bear a greater share of the burden for foreign reconstruction projects.
Outlets like The American Conservative have been particularly vocal on this front. In an early February 2026 piece titled, “The Board of Peace: A Return to a Failed Approach,” the publication argued that the initiative imposes a “massive and unnecessary burden” on American taxpayers and servicemembers by having the U.S. shoulder primary responsibility for Gaza’s security and rebuilding.
While Thursday’s inaugural meeting highlighted the $7 billion+ in pledges from nine other nations as evidence of burden-sharing, certain skeptics in fiscal-conservative and isolationist circles remain concerned that such large commitments could divert resources from pressing domestic priorities like debt reduction, or competing military needs, potentially entangling the U.S. further in foreign affairs.
Hosting nearly 50 nations on Thursday, while explicitly positioning the BoP as an “overseer” toward the UN, Trump explained that the Board of Peace will “almost be looking over the United Nations and making sure it runs properly.”
This reflects the president’s long-standing criticism of the UN as bureaucratic, inefficient, and biased, suggesting that he envisions the BoP as a parallel or supervisory body to push for better performance from the UN — or potentially even supplant parts of its role in certain conflicts or peace processes
Although the administration has not yet provided a detailed breakdown of the funding sources or a firm timeline for transferring the U.S. contribution to the Board, analysts and observers familiar with the matter have begun offering estimates and speculation on potential origins of the funds.
According to analysts, the $10 billion U.S. pledge will likely be fueled by the Trump administration’s “Humanitarian Reset,” a policy shift that reallocates existing foreign aid away from traditional UN agencies toward U.S.-led “pooled fund vehicles.”
By bypassing organizations like UNRWA, the administration intends to consolidate billions in voluntary humanitarian aid under the Board’s direct oversight.
Trump defended the high price tag by arguing that the cost is “very small” when compared to the expense of active military conflict, suggesting he may also seek to leverage funds originally allocated for traditional peacekeeping to fulfill the pledge. Nonetheless, the primary source is likely the redirection of existing foreign aid.
Historically, the U.S. has provided $8–$17 billion annually in voluntary humanitarian aid. By cutting or bypassing UN agencies, the administration has shifted those billions toward its own initiatives, like the Board of Peace. The administration also argues that by reforming the way aid is delivered — specifically by cutting “unaccountable” grant models — they are saving billions.
The State Department suggested that a new funding model for 2026 could also save taxpayers roughly $1.9 billion compared to previous years, with those “savings” potentially being recycled into the Board’s $10 billion pledge. Since the Board of Peace has a unique “pay-to-play” structure for other nations, that could likely offset total U.S. costs as well, analysts added.
International organizations and partners
The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has agreed to raise an additional $2 billion specifically for Gaza support, as stated by Trump during the inaugural meeting.
World Bank-managed fund
Pledges, including international ones, are being directed to a new dedicated Gaza Reconstruction and Development Fund housed at the World Bank. World Bank President Ajay Banga confirmed this setup during the meeting, noting the fund is “ready to receive” donations.
This could attract additional multilateral or bilateral contributions beyond the initial pledges, as the World Bank often mobilizes broader donor support for such initiatives.
Broader international pledges and private/investment angles
Reports suggest powerhouse sovereign wealth funds, such as Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, and Middle Eastern investors are positioned to pour tens of billions into reconstruction efforts tied to the BOP, though potentially conditional on progress — such as Hamas fully disarming and governance changes.
Some incoming reports also mention JPMorgan Chase in talks to bank for the BOP, which could facilitate larger private-sector or investment-driven inflows.
.jpeg)
Comments
Post a Comment