Donald Trump's 'board of peace' looks like a privatised UN with one shareholder: the US president

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

69% : First, there is strong evidence that the UN is effective as peace builder, especially after civil war, and that UN peacekeeping does work to keep the peace.
53% : Part of the reason why the UN has success as a peacemaker and peacebuilder is the fact that it is still seen as relatively legitimate.
47% : What Trump is effectively proposing is to set up a corporate version of the UN, controlled and run by him.
45% : Settling conflicts is the prerogative of the UN.
44% : Second, there is no question that the UN does not always succeed in its efforts to achieve peace.
37% : They have also obstructed operations on the ground, as is evident in the protracted crisis in Sudan, where the UN endlessly debates human suffering but lacks most of the funds to alleviate it.
35% : Is this the end for the United Nations? The deeper and more tragic irony in this is threefold.
35% : But more leaders should consider whether they really want to be Trump's willing executioners when it comes to the UN and instead imagine, to paraphrase a well-known anti-war slogan, what would happen if Trump "gave a board of peace and no one came?"
34% : There's a long history of UN member states blocking security council resolutions, providing only weak mandates or cutting short the duration of UN missions.
25% : Even his UN-endorsed 20-point ceasefire and transition plan for Gaza released on September 29 2025 is now in danger of being subsumed in yet another grandiose fantasy of the American president: the so-called "board of peace" to be chaired by Trump.
22% : Among such institutions, the UN has been a favourite target for Trump's criticism and disdain, as evident in a recent directive to cease participating in and funding 31 UN organisations.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.