The proposal, first unveiled in September during Trump’s announcement of a plan to end the Gaza war, has since expanded in scope to include conflicts worldwide, drawing both interest and concern among global leaders.

According to a draft charter seen by officials, Trump will serve as the inaugural chairman of the Board of Peace, giving him broad executive authority over the body’s direction, decision-making and membership structure.

The charter outlines that member countries would typically serve three-year terms, though nations willing to contribute $1 billion toward the board’s funding would be eligible for permanent membership status.

The White House has named several prominent figures to the founding Executive Board, including U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff, former British prime minister Tony Blair and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.

Officials involved in the initiative say the board is intended to promote peace-building efforts in line with international law, although questions remain over its legal authority and relationship with existing global institutions.

Witkoff stated that up to 25 countries have already accepted invitations to join the Board of Peace, including several Middle Eastern allies of Washington such as Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt.

NATO members Turkey and Hungary have also agreed to participate, reflecting their leaders’ close personal ties with Trump and their willingness to engage with alternative diplomatic frameworks.

Other participating nations include Armenia and Azerbaijan, which reached a U.S.-brokered peace agreement last year after talks hosted at the White House.

More controversially, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has accepted the invitation, a move that signals a broader thaw in relations between Washington and Minsk despite longstanding Western criticism of Belarus’s human rights record.

Russia and China, both permanent veto-holding members of the U.N. Security Council, have not yet confirmed whether they will join, with diplomats suggesting caution due to concerns about undermining the United Nations.

Trump has dismissed suggestions that the Board of Peace is meant to replace the U.N., stating that the world body should continue its work while his initiative explores alternative pathways to conflict resolution.

Several close U.S. allies have either declined or expressed hesitation, with Norway and Sweden formally rejecting participation and Italy raising constitutional concerns about joining a board led by a single foreign leader.

France is expected to decline as well, prompting Trump to warn of potential trade retaliation, while Canada has agreed in principle but said further discussions are needed on the details.

Ukraine has said it is reviewing the invitation but expressed doubts about joining any forum that might include Russia, highlighting the political sensitivities surrounding the initiative.

As debate continues, diplomats and analysts remain divided over whether the Board of Peace represents a bold diplomatic experiment or a challenge to established international norms.

The move places New Delhi among a select group of countries being courted by Washington as it seeks broader international involvement in diplomatic efforts linked to the Palestinian enclave and wider regional stability.

The invitation comes at a delicate moment in India–US relations, with bilateral ties facing pressure over unresolved trade disputes.

Despite growing strategic cooperation in areas such as defense, technology and Indo-Pacific security, negotiations have stalled over tariffs on Indian exports to the United States, which are currently subject to levies of up to 50 percent, among the highest imposed by Washington.

This backdrop adds complexity to India’s consideration of Trump’s peace initiative.

According to the source, it remains unclear whether India will accept the invitation. New Delhi’s foreign ministry has not publicly commented, reflecting the cautious approach India often adopts when balancing diplomatic engagement with major powers against its own strategic autonomy.

India has traditionally supported a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict while maintaining close ties with Israel and longstanding support for Palestinian rights.

Trump’s “Board of Peace” initiative is envisioned as a multinational platform bringing together governments to explore pathways to conflict resolution, with Gaza positioned as its initial focus.

The US president has reportedly extended invitations to around 60 countries, signaling an attempt to give the initiative global legitimacy.

Among those invited is Pakistan, India’s neighbor and regional rival, which has already indicated it would engage in international efforts aimed at peace and security in Gaza.

For India, participation could offer both opportunities and challenges. On one hand, joining the initiative would allow New Delhi to project itself as a responsible global actor committed to peace-building, aligning with its broader aspirations to play a larger diplomatic role on the world stage.

On the other hand, involvement in a US-led mechanism during a period of trade friction could be seen domestically and internationally as politically sensitive.

India’s relationship with the Gaza conflict has been carefully calibrated. While condemning civilian casualties and calling for humanitarian access, India has also strengthened defense and technological cooperation with Israel over the past decade.

Any formal role in a peace board would require New Delhi to navigate these relationships carefully, ensuring it does not appear to tilt too far toward any single camp.

Analysts note that Trump’s outreach to India may also reflect Washington’s recognition of New Delhi’s growing influence, particularly among developing nations and in forums such as the G20 and the Global South.

India’s experience in peacekeeping missions, conflict mediation, and humanitarian assistance could add credibility to any multilateral peace initiative, even if its actual impact on the ground remains uncertain.

The timing of the invitation is also significant given the broader geopolitical landscape. With conflicts stretching from the Middle East to Eastern Europe and heightened competition among major powers, diplomatic initiatives aimed at de-escalation carry both symbolic and strategic weight.

For the United States, securing participation from countries like India could help counter criticism that its Middle East policies lack broad international backing.

Whether India ultimately joins the Board of Peace may depend on several factors, including clarity on the initiative’s mandate, decision-making structure, and alignment with India’s foreign policy principles.

New Delhi is likely to assess whether participation would offer tangible diplomatic leverage or risk entangling it in initiatives over which it has limited influence.

The invitation nonetheless underscores India’s rising profile in global diplomacy. How New Delhi responds could signal its approach to balancing strategic partnerships with independent foreign policy choices.