Vatican Declines to Join Trump’s “Board of Peace” as Allies Hold Back

Pope Leo XIV has declined an invitation to join former President Donald Trump’s newly formed “Board of Peace,” delivering a diplomatic setback to an initiative the administration had promoted as a new global framework for post-conflict reconstruction.

The refusal was communicated the same morning the board held its inaugural meeting in Washington.

Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s Secretary of State, confirmed that the Holy See would not participate, stating that the board’s “particular nature” differed from that of traditional multilateral institutions. He added that, at the international level, crisis management should “above all be handled by the United Nations.”

The Vatican’s position underscores a broader debate about the structure and legitimacy of the new body.

What Is the Board of Peace?

The Board of Peace was announced as a reconstruction and stabilization mechanism beginning with Gaza, following a fragile ceasefire that took effect in October 2025. According to public remarks by Trump earlier this year, the board would initially focus on Gaza but could expand to address other global conflicts, with Trump serving as chairman.

The inaugural meeting was held at the U.S. Institute of Peace, which was renamed in December as the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace.

Administration officials have described the board as an innovative and flexible approach to conflict resolution outside traditional United Nations structures. Critics, however, argue that the initiative risks creating a parallel diplomatic architecture without the formal legal frameworks that govern established international bodies.

Who Joined — and Who Did Not

Approximately 60 countries reportedly received invitations. According to public announcements, participating or supporting states include Russia, Hungary, Vietnam, El Salvador, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and Egypt.

Several European allies declined to join as full members. The United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Poland did not sign on. Italy and the European Union sent representatives as observers rather than members.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky publicly questioned how a peace-focused body could function while including countries currently involved in active military conflicts.

A senior White House official declined to comment on specific diplomatic conversations but emphasized that participation was voluntary.

Financial Structure Raises Questions

Reports indicate that participation in the board may involve a significant financial contribution from member states. While figures have circulated suggesting a substantial entry cost, the administration has not released formal documentation detailing membership fees or funding structures.

On February 15, Trump posted on Truth Social that participating nations had committed more than $5 billion toward Gaza reconstruction and humanitarian assistance. A breakdown of those pledges has not yet been publicly released.

Vatican’s Broader Position

Pope Leo XIV, the first American-born pope, has repeatedly called for a two-state solution and for humanitarian protections in Gaza. He has advocated for both the release of hostages and for the rights and safety of Palestinian civilians, while also condemning antisemitism.

Senior Vatican officials have framed their refusal not as a rejection of reconstruction efforts but as a commitment to established multilateral mechanisms. Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, previously expressed concerns that reconstruction efforts must include Palestinian participation and align with recognized international frameworks.

The Holy See’s stance signals its continued preference for UN-centered diplomacy rather than alternative coalitions.

A Parallel Architecture?

Some European analysts privately describe the Board of Peace as functioning alongside — or potentially in competition with — the UN Security Council’s conflict management role.

Supporters of the initiative argue that existing global institutions have often proven slow and ineffective, and that new mechanisms may offer more agility in crisis response. Critics counter that legitimacy in peace-building depends on inclusive representation, transparency, and adherence to international law.

Notably, Palestinian representatives do not appear to hold a formal governance role within the current board structure.

The Diplomatic Moment

The inaugural meeting proceeded without Vatican participation and without formal membership from several key Western allies.

The question now facing diplomats is whether the Board of Peace will evolve into a durable institution with broad international support — or remain a limited coalition operating outside traditional multilateral channels.

For now, the Vatican’s decision reflects a deeper philosophical divide over how global crises should be managed: through established, consensus-based institutions like the United Nations, or through alternative frameworks shaped by voluntary coalitions.

As reconstruction efforts in Gaza move forward amid continued tensions, the effectiveness and legitimacy of competing diplomatic models will likely face increasing scrutiny.