Trump’s Board of Peace puts India in a strategic bind as New Delhi weighs risks and restraint

When US President Donald Trump formally launched the Board of Peace at the World Economic Forum in Davos, several governments quickly signed on. India did not. Instead, New Delhi adopted a familiar and deliberate approach: observe closely, assess implications, and avoid early commitment.

The invitation extended to Prime Minister Narendra Modi remains unanswered. It has not been declined, but neither has it been accepted. This calibrated silence reflects India’s caution toward Trump’s latest global initiative and its potential implications for international order, regional security, and India’s own long-standing diplomatic principles.

Trump and the Board of Peace: What Is It?

Originally framed as a mechanism to manage post-war stabilization and reconstruction in Gaza following the conflict between Israel and Hamas, Trump’s Board of Peace has since expanded in ambition. Its founding charter grants it authority to operate in “areas affected or threatened by conflict” across the world, giving it a global mandate that extends well beyond its initial focus.

Although the board received limited backing through a UN Security Council resolution, it functions independently of the United Nations’ established governance systems. It is not accountable to the UN General Assembly, nor is it bound by standard UN oversight mechanisms.

Under the charter, Trump serves as the board’s life-long chairman. He retains sweeping authority to appoint members, determine priorities, approve decisions, and expand the institution’s scope. For India, this concentration of power is one of the central issues driving hesitation.

Why India Is Hesitant About Trump’s Board of Peace

One of New Delhi’s first considerations is the board’s composition. While several West Asian states, including Saudi Arabia, Israel, the UAE, Egypt, and Qatar, have joined, participation from major global powers is limited. Most European countries have stayed out. None of the other permanent members of the UN Security Council—China, Russia, France, or the United Kingdom—has signed on.

From India’s perspective, this raises doubts about the board’s international credibility. An institution claiming global authority but lacking broad participation from major powers risks becoming diplomatically weak and politically vulnerable.

Indian officials are wary of associating with a body that could struggle to command consensus or legitimacy in future crises.

Trump, Longevity, and Institutional Uncertainty

Another major concern for India is durability. In New Delhi, the Board of Peace is widely viewed as Trump’s personal project. There are few safeguards built into its structure to ensure continuity beyond his presidency.

Indian policymakers are openly questioning what happens when Trump leaves office. Without clear succession rules or institutional independence, the board could rapidly lose relevance or cease functioning altogether. For India, investing diplomatic capital, financial resources, and political credibility in a short-lived institution carries clear risks.

Trump’s Board of Peace and the Challenge to Multilateralism

India has consistently positioned itself as a supporter of multilateralism anchored in the UN system, even as it argues for reform of global institutions. Trump’s Board of Peace, by design, sits outside that framework.

While it carries a limited form of UN authorization, it does not follow UN norms of collective decision-making or shared accountability. Power is centralized rather than distributed. For India, joining such a body could signal acceptance of a parallel global governance model, one that may weaken institutions New Delhi relies on to amplify its voice on the world stage.

This concern is particularly acute as India seeks a larger role in global decision-making through established multilateral platforms.

Scope Creep and Strategic Anxiety

India is also unsettled by the board’s expanding mandate. Gaza may have been the starting point, but Trump has openly suggested that the model could be applied to other conflicts.

This triggers specific concerns in South Asia. Trump has previously claimed credit for easing tensions between India and Pakistan, assertions New Delhi has firmly rejected. Any external mechanism that could insert itself into regional disputes, especially one operating at Trump’s discretion, is viewed with suspicion by Indian strategists.

Trump, Money, and Power Imbalance

Reports indicate that permanent membership in the Board of Peace requires a contribution of $1 billion. This introduces what Indian officials see as a “pay-to-influence” structure. Even with financial contributions, member states reportedly hold only advisory voting power, with final authority resting solely with the chairman.

For India, this undermines the principle of sovereign equality that underpins traditional multilateral institutions. It also raises concerns about whether financial leverage, rather than consensus, determines influence within Trump’s board.

Balancing Trump and the US Relationship

Despite its reservations, India is not inclined to reject Trump’s invitation outright. The United States remains a key strategic partner across defense, technology, and regional security. An outright refusal could carry diplomatic costs at a sensitive moment in bilateral relations.

This explains India’s current strategy of strategic patience. By waiting, New Delhi keeps channels open with Washington while avoiding early endorsement of an institution whose future and impact remain uncertain.

India, Trump, and the Decision Ahead

India’s eventual decision on Trump’s Board of Peace will depend on how the institution evolves. New Delhi will be watching closely for signs of broader international participation, clearer alignment with UN principles, and limits on unilateral authority.

For now, India is choosing caution over commitment. In doing so, it is sending a broader signal. India is open to engaging with new global initiatives, but not at the expense of multilateral norms, strategic autonomy, or long-term credibility.

In Trump’s Board of Peace, India sees not just a potential opportunity, but a precedent. And for a rising global power, precedents matter.