print-icon
print-icon

Trump's Board of Peace Fund Empty, Raising Questions Over Endgame In Gaza

blueapples's Photo
by blueapples
Wednesday, May 27, 2026 - 11:30

blueapples on X | ashesofacacia.substack.com


When the United Nations Security Council (”UNSC”) officially approved of the 20-point peace plan constructed by the Trump administration and agreed upon by the State of Israel and Hamas on November 17th, 2025, the world looked at the development with cautious optimism that a lasting peace in the Middle East had finally been brokered. However, that optimism was largely drowned out by skepticism from critics and policy analysts alike who took issue with the parameters of the peace plan and the vision it had for a post-war Gaza Strip. Chief among those parameters that raised red flags was the establishment of the Board of Peace, which would be tasked with oversight of the ceasefire, efforts to rebuild the Gaza Strip, and the establishment of a technocratic council assigned to govern the territory in the aftermath of the war. Since its establishment, the Board of Peace has been met with criticism over its governance model, doubts over its ability to raise the funds needed to carry out its mission, and its ulterior political motives. While Trump administration and Israeli government officials have disavowed those criticisms, a report alleging the drastic shortfall of the Board of Peace’s funding gives credence to the doubt it has been mired within since its inception.

According to four separate sources with familiarity of the Trump Board of Peace’s finances who spoke to The Financial Times, the fund established by the board through the World Bank has had zero dollars deposited into it despite receiving $17 billion in pledges from partners ranging from the United States and the European Union (”EU”) to several Arab states. Instead of operating through the World Bank-administered fund approved by the UNSC, the Board of Peace has been accepting deposits directly through an account it established with American multinational banking institution JPMorgan Chase & Co. That delivery mechanism for funds paid to the Board of Peace amplifies the concerns raised over its transparency. Unlike the World Bank fund established by the UNSC when it agreed to the Trump administration’s Gaza peace plan, the board’s account with JPMorgan is not subject to any oversight or reporting on its finances. That lack of transparency raises further questions over not just the board’s financial outlook but also about how the funds that have been delivered to it are being used.

An official with the Board of Peace spoke to The Financial Times in an effort to ensure that the board was funded in line with expectations. The official conveyed that the board’s World Bank fund was just one of several mechanisms created to accept contributions from member states involved in financing the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. They indicated that the reasons behind the World Bank fund’s coffers being empty were because “contributors have opted to use other options,” alluding to the board’s account with JPMorgan. Addressing the issue of transparency, the official stated that the Board of Peace will report its finances to its own executive board. That executive board chaired by President Donald J. Trump includes U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio; U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff; Trump’s son-in-law and senior advisor Jared Kushner; former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair; CEO of Apollo Global Management Marc Rowan; President of the World Bank Ajay Banga; U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor Robert Gabriel; and Bulgarian former United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Nikolay Mladenov, who was named the director general of the Board of Peace. Despite assurances made by officials that the Board of Peace will report its finances to the executive board, they offered no definitive timeline on issuing those findings. Instead, the official who spoke with The Financial Times indicated that the financial reports will be provided “at a time deemed appropriate” that has yet to be formally announced.

Concerns over the funding shortfall follow estimates that $70 billion will be needed for the Gaza reconstruction effort over the next decade to rebuild the 85 percent of buildings and infrastructure in the region destroyed by the Israel Defense Forces (“IDF”), a figure that far exceeds the $17 billion in pledges made to the Board of Peace. Despite its best attempts to assuage those concerns, the Board of Peace acknowledged the liquidity crisis it faces in a report it submitted to the UNSC on May 15th, 2026. “The Board of Peace underscores that the gap between commitment and disbursement must be closed with urgency. Funds committed but not yet disbursed represent the difference between a framework that exists on paper and one that delivers on the ground for the people of Gaza,” the report stated. The report issued to the UNSC contravened statements made by the board in April, in which it stated that “all funding requests have been met immediately and in full” in the face of mounting criticism including accusations that it had only received a tiny fraction of the $17 million in pledges made to it.

International experts tracking aid to Palestine have highlighted the reticence of partners from Arab states and the EU being a major force behind the Board of Peace’s inability to raise the pledges that were made to it. Moath al-Amoudi, an expert in international aid to Palestinians, told Al Jazeera that “Donors are terrified of engaging with a board that carries no political vision and treats Gaza merely as an American security protectorate.” Fundamental concerns over the Board of Peace’s vision for the future of the Gaza Strip due to its governing body being imbued with the guiding influence of pro-Israel figures have been exacerbated by the onset of war with Iran, which has further destabilized the Middle East and alienated Arab nations and EU member states from the U.S.-Israel axis behind both the Board of Peace and the conflict against Iran.

In addition to the increased instability in the region since the establishment of the Board of Peace, critics also have raised their doubts over the next stages of the Trump peace plan successfully being enacted. The three-phase plan rests on the complete disarmament of Hamas and its allies in order for the disbursement of funds to reconstruct the Gaza Strip. In place of Hamas, the Board of Peace will implement an interim technocratic body known as the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (”NCAG”) tasked with transitional governance of the region. Although it has been billed as a non-partisan committee composed of 15 independent Palestinian professionals, chaired by civil engineer Dr. Ali Shaath, the NCAG will operate under the external supervision of the Board of Peace. In addition to the doubts over the independence of the NCAG in consideration of it operating under the auspices of the board, lingering questions over the military and security matters not delegated to the committee raise even more pessimism over the outlook of the viability of the transitional government outlined by the peace plan.

Nickolay Mladenov, the director-general of the Board of Peace, issued a letter to the NCAG in early May warning the interim governing body that has yet to take over in Gaza that Hamas’ refusal to disarm itself under the parameters set forth by the UN-approved peace plan constructed by the Trump administration threatened to render the ceasefire it implemented “null and void.” Hamas has cited repeated violations of the ceasefire by Israel in its rebuke of calls for it to disarm. According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, the IDF has killed at least 832 Palestinians in Gaza since the ceasefire took effect. Satellite imagery has revealed that the IDF has systematically repositioned the yellow line established by the ceasefire as a point of demarcation between the land occupied by the Israeli military in an effort to increase the territory it holds.

Authorities in Gaza have also claimed that restrictions created by the IDF have only allowed for the entry of 200 aid trucks carrying relief supplies into the territory per day on average, far from the minimum of 600 dictated by the first phase of the peace plan enacted by the UNSC. These claims would constitute violations of the parameters on the distribution of humanitarian relief into the region stipulated under the first phrase of the peace plan by Israel, rendering a bleak outlook on the realization of its second and third phases, which encompass the withdrawal of IDF forces as well as the disarmament of Hamas and the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip, respectively.

Despite the allegations made against Israel, Mladenov focused the blame for the crumbling hopes of the advancement of the peace plan on Hamas during a security council briefing made to the UNSC on May 21st, 2025. A report issued by the Board of Peace to the UNSC at the briefing stated, “At this stage, the principal obstacle to full implementation remains Hamas’ refusal to accept verified decommissioning, relinquish coercive control, and permit a genuine civilian transition in Gaza.” However, Mladenov admitted to Israel’s own transgressions during the briefing as well, saying, “Implementation cannot advance through Palestinian obligations alone. The continued killings, Israeli restrictions, and delays affecting humanitarian flows are not abstract issues.”

Given the impasse between Israel and Hamas, concerns over the funding of the Trump Board of Peace may be a moot point as hopes that the peace plan designed to resolve the conflict will be fully realized continue to spiral downward. What concerns over the board’s funding do show is that the initial skepticism regarding its transparency, political motives, and outlook for the future of the Gaza Strip appear to have been merited. Even in the event that the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas holds and the peace plan continues onto its second and third phases, those familiar with the current state of the Board of Peace doubt it will be able to achieve its objectives. According to one official who spoke to The Financial Times, the Board of Peace has yet to establish any authority in Gaza “to handle the flow of services and goods that are imagined as part of the plan,” a statement that reflects that even if the board is able to meet its financial obligations, it still faces a logistical nightmare in rebuilding the war-torn Gaza Strip. What also remains to be seen is whether or not the problems the Board of Peace faces are rooted in pragmatic shortcomings of its plan for the future of the Gaza Strip or if they’re a sign of a deeply misaligned ideology that makes securing peace irreconcilable with achieving its actual aims.

Contributor posts published on Zero Hedge do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of Zero Hedge, and are not selected, edited or screened by Zero Hedge editors.
0
Loading...