After having withdrawn from and undermined UN agencies from UNESCO to the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), Trump now proposes an entity that aims to circumvent the UN entirely, effectively doing away with the Security Council. According to this scheme, Trump would hold sole authority over who is appointed to or excluded from the board. Such a notion speaks of a deeply troubling conception of the international order: a system based on personal, individual whim as opposed to multilateralism and collective legitimacy.
Since the establishment of the UN in the aftermath of World War II, the Security Council – despite imbalances and other flaws – has symbolised a collective desire to manage international conflict within a framework of shared rules. Even if those rules are skewed in favour of the dominant powers or otherwise inequitable, to run roughshod over them through a so-called Board of Peace run by a single man is extremely dangerous. It essentially erodes the foundations of international law and turns peace from a shared human value into an instrument wielded by a single power to reward or punish whomever it chooses.
Not only does Trump’s proposal betray Washington’s disdain for international institutions, it also seeks to impose a destructive logic – one that rejects reform in favour of the wrecking ball. Rather than working to expand the Security Council, amend the veto rules, or ensure fairer representation for the Global South – as most of the international community has long demanded – Trump simply forces an alternative on the world so he can control it more directly. He has reverted to the way empires operated in eras when alliances were forged at palace tables, instead of in the halls of institutions open to all nations.
As for that cynically named board itself, it is already flawed by an inherent contradiction: how can it claim to promote peace when it is founded on exclusion and the entrenchment of camps? How can it gain moral or political legitimacy if the criterion for acceptance is proximity to the founder rather than commitment to international law and human rights?
Like other Trumpian ideas, this one ultimately reflects a deeper crisis in the current global order. It is characterised by a loss of trust in institutions and a brand of leadership more dedicated to self-promotion and glorification than to human welfare, which requires collective solutions and international stability. It is a reminder that when critical decision-making is confined to an individual, peace becomes extremely fragile.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 5 February, 2026 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: