The Trump Board of Peace proposal for a post-war transition in Gaza is facing early resistance in Northern Europe: Norway and Sweden have both said they will not sign up to the initiative “as the text stands”, citing unanswered legal and political questions and the need to keep any new mechanism tied to established international frameworks, including the United Nations.
Why Norway is rejecting the Trump Board of Peace draft
Norway’s Prime Minister’s Office has confirmed that Oslo will not join the current setup of the Board of Peace, and will not attend the planned signing ceremony in Davos.
In comments, a government representative said the American proposal “raises a number of questions” that require further dialogue with the USA, and stressed that what matters most for Norway is how the plan connects to existing structures such as the UN system and Norway’s obligations within it.
Norway’s stance is shaped not only by legal concerns but also by political credibility. Oslo has traditionally positioned itself as a diplomatic actor and donor in conflict mediation and humanitarian policy — including in the Middle East — and has tended to operate through multilateral channels.
Sweden’s response: “not signing as it is now”
Sweden’s Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said in Davos that he will not accept the invitation to join Trump’s peace council, adding that Sweden will discuss the issue with other EU countries but that, as the text currently stands, Sweden will not sign.
The Swedish position reflects both a preference for collective EU coordination on sensitive foreign-policy issues and concerns about the governance model described in reporting about the draft charter.
What the Board of Peace is meant to do in Gaza
According to reporting by Reuters, AP and other outlets, the Board of Peace is presented by Trump as an oversight body for the transition and reconstruction of Gaza, with an ambition to expand to other conflicts.
However, the draft charter described by several media reports appears to leave wide discretion to the USA president over membership and decision-making, including the ability to invite and remove participants. Critics argue that this structure raises questions of legitimacy, accountability and compatibility with the principles that usually underpin international organisations — such as equality among states and treaty-based mandates.
A governance model that worries European governments
European reactions have largely focused on two interconnected points. First, the proposed mechanism does not appear to be grounded in a treaty negotiated among states, which makes it harder for governments to treat the Board as a stable, rules-based institution with clear obligations and safeguards.
Second, an invitation framework where countries would hold limited terms unless they pay a very large contribution for permanent membership. Using the European Central Bank’s reference exchange rate, $1 billion corresponds to roughly €850 million (based on EUR 1 = USD 1.1728 on 20 January 2026).
In practice, European officials fear that a high-cost structure built on broad presidential discretion could compete with or undermine established multilateral instruments — especially UN-led processes — rather than strengthen them.
The invitees list adds to the controversy
The initiative has also drawn attention because of the mix of invitees and early supporters reported by the media. Israel is among those accepting the invitation, while Reuters has also described support from the United Arab Emirates and Hungary, and hesitation or refusals among several Western allies.
At the same time, some reports say the invitation list includes leaders such as Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, which has heightened concerns in Europe about the political messaging and practical implications of legitimising a new forum that includes actors central to current geopolitical conflicts.
