Invitation Withdrawal and Funding Standoff On 23 January 2026 President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that Canada’s invitation to the newly announced Board of Peace was being withdrawn, offering no explanation [1][2]. Prime Minister Mark Carney had signaled acceptance in principle, but Ottawa refused to fund the proposed $1 billion membership fee required of permanent members [1][2]. The funding impasse prompted Trump to rescind the invitation, underscoring tension in the U.S.–Canada relationship after Carney warned of a rupture in the U.S.-led global order [1].

Board Composition and Launch at Davos The Board of Peace was unveiled at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where Trump named an executive panel to oversee a transitional administration for Gaza, including figures such as Senator Marco Rubio, Jared Kushner, and former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair [2]. The White House reported that roughly 60 nations received invitations and about 35 have signed on, with signatories ranging from Argentina and Vietnam to Saudi Arabia and Qatar [1]. No permanent United Nations Security Council members—China, France, Russia, or the United Kingdom—have committed to joining [1].

European and Other Nations’ Mixed Reactions European leaders expressed doubts about the Board’s charter, governance, and compatibility with the UN Charter, while the EU signaled willingness to cooperate on a Gaza peace plan [1]. Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez publicly declined the invitation, and the United Kingdom raised concerns about Vladimir Putin’s inclusion [1]. France, Norway, and Sweden either deferred or declined participation, highlighting broader skepticism among Western allies [2].

U.S. Political Responses Republican lawmakers largely praised the initiative; Rubio lauded Trump’s vision in a White House release, and other supporters framed the Board as a potential turning point for Middle‑East peace [2]. Conversely, Representative Pat Patronis criticized Canada’s stance on X, labeling the withdrawal a punitive measure [2]. The divergent domestic reactions illustrate the board’s polarizing impact within U.S. politics [2].