President Donald Trump recently introduced what he called the “Board of Peace,” presenting it as an ambitious new mechanism aimed at resolving some of the world’s most persistent conflicts. Announced with considerable fanfare, the initiative was framed as a fresh approach to diplomacy, one that would bypass what Trump has often characterized as slow or ineffective international institutions. He pointed specifically to conflict zones such as Gaza as examples of areas where decisive and coordinated action was urgently needed. By proposing the board, Trump positioned the United States as the driving force behind a new structure intended to foster dialogue, negotiate settlements, and promote stability. Central to the announcement was his assertion that the global community required innovative solutions rather than relying solely on existing organizations that, in his view, had struggled to deliver lasting peace.

The structure of the proposed Board of Peace quickly became a focal point of international discussion. According to the plan, nations wishing to secure permanent membership would be required to contribute $1 billion. Supporters argued that this financial commitment would ensure seriousness of purpose and provide substantial funding for peace-building initiatives, humanitarian efforts, and diplomatic engagement. Critics, however, saw the requirement as a barrier that limited participation and potentially skewed influence toward wealthier or politically aligned states. The financial threshold prompted immediate reactions from governments around the world. Several key Western allies — including Germany, Canada, France, Italy, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine — declined to participate. While official explanations varied, their decisions suggested reservations about the board’s framework, leadership structure, and its relationship to existing international systems.

At the same time, the initiative did attract backing from a group of countries that accepted the invitation to join. Israel, Argentina, Russia, Hungary, and Saudi Arabia signaled their willingness to become part of the new body. Their participation lent the proposal a measure of credibility and demonstrated that it was not universally dismissed. Yet the contrasting responses underscored clear geopolitical divisions. Observers noted that the nations choosing to participate often shared closer political alignment with Trump’s foreign policy outlook or had strategic reasons to support an alternative diplomatic forum. The emerging composition of the board raised broader questions about whether it would function as a genuinely multilateral peace initiative or reflect the priorities of a more limited coalition. The divergence in reactions highlighted the challenges of building consensus in an increasingly polarized international environment.

Among the most closely watched aspects of the announcement was Trump’s invitation to Pope Leo, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church. Extending an offer to the Pope was widely interpreted as an attempt to infuse the Board of Peace with moral authority and global spiritual legitimacy. As head of a faith community numbering more than a billion people worldwide, Pope Leo holds significant influence in international humanitarian and diplomatic circles. His potential participation could have signaled a bridging of political and religious leadership in pursuit of peace. When the invitation was first made public in January, the Vatican responded cautiously. Officials indicated that the Pope was reflecting on the proposal and would take time to evaluate its implications. The measured tone suggested that the matter was under careful consideration, consistent with the Holy See’s longstanding tradition of deliberate and nuanced diplomacy.

In the months that followed, anticipation grew regarding the Vatican’s final decision. Ultimately, reports confirmed that Pope Leo had chosen to decline the invitation. According to accounts emerging from Vatican sources, his response was not only firm but also conveyed clear reservations about the concept itself. The decision reflected deeper principles that guide the Holy See’s engagement with global affairs. Historically, the Vatican has emphasized multilateralism, dialogue, and cooperation through established international institutions. By declining to join a board spearheaded by a single national government, Pope Leo signaled concern about concentrating peace efforts within a structure that might not represent a broad and balanced international consensus. His rejection carried symbolic weight, as it underscored the Church’s preference for inclusive frameworks over initiatives perceived as politically centralized.

Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s Secretary of State and chief diplomat, elaborated on the reasoning behind the decision. He explained that Pope Leo believes conflicts such as the one in Gaza should be addressed through the United Nations, which was specifically created to manage global disputes through collective international participation. From the Vatican’s perspective, the legitimacy and effectiveness of peace initiatives are strengthened when they operate within widely recognized multilateral systems. While acknowledging the importance of creative approaches to diplomacy, Parolin emphasized that the Church supports solutions grounded in cooperation among nations rather than structures led by a single country, regardless of its influence. The Vatican’s stance thus reinforced its longstanding commitment to the principles of shared responsibility and global dialogue, even as new proposals like the Board of Peace seek to reshape the landscape of international peacemaking.