Trump Says He Will Announce Gaza Board of Peace Members Early Next Year

President Donald Trump told reporters at a White House event on December 10 that he expects to name international leaders to a Gaza Board of Peace in early 2026, describing the potential membership as monarchs, presidents and prime ministers who had expressed interest and calling the body potentially "legendary." The proposal forms a central pillar of a U.S. backed Gaza plan that is linked to a fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas and was authorized by a U.N. Security Council resolution adopted on November 17.

The board is designed to coordinate international reconstruction funding for Gaza and to serve as a temporary governance arrangement until the Palestinian Authority completes a package of internal reforms. U.S. officials and international diplomats have said the mechanism aims to bring donor coherence and oversight to rebuilding a territory whose civilian infrastructure suffered extensive damage during the recent conflict. The White House event was the first public indication of a near term timetable for naming specific leaders to the body.

Policy analysts said the plan, as sketched by senior U.S. officials, will test competing priorities among major donor states, the U.N. and Palestinian institutions. Internationally administered transitional arrangements have precedent. Examples include U.N. administrations that governed Kosovo and East Timor after conflict, each of which combined direct oversight with a path toward local authority. Those models underscore familiar trade offs between speed of rebuilding, local legitimacy and political sovereignty.

The political economy of reconstruction is consequential for markets and regional stability. Coordinated donor funding could accelerate contracts for construction, engineering and logistics firms, while also shaping which companies and countries capture a share of rebuilding work. Clarity about governance and legal protections for foreign aid will be crucial for private sector partners and financial institutions assessing risk. At the same time, the prospect of an international board overseeing funds may complicate relations with donors who worry about liability and political exposure.

For the Palestinian Authority, the proposed board raises immediate governance questions. Accepting an interim international administration that conditions its role on internal reforms will pressure Palestinian leaders to demonstrate capacity and transparency, while exposing them to domestic political backlash. For Israel, proponents argue that international oversight that ties reconstruction to security guarantees could reduce the risk of resources being diverted to militant groups. Critics warn that externally driven solutions may not resolve the underlying political disputes that fuel periodic violence.

Timing remains one of the most sensitive variables. If names are announced early next year as the president indicated, donor conferences and reconstruction planning could move forward quickly. If the process stalls, delayed reconstruction could exacerbate humanitarian and political strains, increasing risks to regional markets and investor confidence. Whatever the next steps, the proposal marks an intensification of international involvement in Gaza and a significant test of how multilateral tools are used to manage post conflict reconstruction in the Middle East.