EditEU’s Costa expresses ‘serious doubts’ on Trump’s Board of Peace after late-night emergency summit
As Trump continues to reshape global institutions, European leaders may find themselves increasingly on the defensive
In the dim hours past midnight, European Union leaders wrapped up an extraordinary summit convened amid escalating transatlantic frictions, with the spotlight firmly on U.S. President Donald J. Trump’s ambitious and controversial “Board of Peace.”
The gathering, which stretched into the early morning of Friday, underscored the precarious ground on which EU policymakers are treading as they navigate the unpredictable currents of Trump’s second term. From tariff threats over Greenland to the sudden expansion of a Gaza-focused initiative into a potential global rival to the United Nations, the summit revealed deep-seated anxieties about maintaining unity in the face of American pressure.
The summit was hastily called by European Council President Antonio Costa following a whirlwind of U.S. actions that rattled European capitals. Just days earlier, Trump had launched the Board of Peace at a signing ceremony in Davos, Switzerland, framing it as a “nimble” alternative to what he has derided as the ineffective UN.
Initially pitched as a mechanism to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction and a fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, the board’s charter quickly ballooned into a broader mandate for international peace-building.
This evolution came against a backdrop of Trump’s tariff threats on eight EU countries, ostensibly tied to disputes over Greenland’s control – a move that prompted emergency consultations and highlighted the U.S. leader’s willingness to wield economic leverage unpredictably.
Trump’s Greenland pivot: genuine backdown or calculated pie in the sky?
EU officials described the atmosphere as one of cautious defiance, with leaders emphasizing the need to “defend ourselves, our member states, our citizens, our companies, against any form of coercion,” as Costa put it in a prior speech to the European Parliament.
The Greenland row, where Trump paused tariffs after Denmark’s concessions, served as a stark reminder of his deal-making style – one that blends brinkmanship with sudden reversals. Adding to the unease is Trump’s inclusion of controversial figures like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Belarus dictator Alexander Lukashenko.
“Trump’s approach is like shifting sands,” one EU diplomat told EUalive anonymously, encapsulating the fear that today’s ally could become tomorrow’s target.
Internally, the EU faced its own fissures. While most leaders aligned on skepticism toward the board, Hungary and Bulgaria emerged as notable defectors. Budapest and Sofia have engaged positively with the initiative, without having previously consulted with EU institutions.
Bulgaria’s caretaker PM joins Trump’s “Board of Peace” at oligarch’s urging
As the summit drew to a close, Costa opted for an unusual format to deliver his wrap-up: oral remarks rather than the customary written conclusions. His tone was measured yet firm – diplomatic in its outreach to Washington but resolute in defending EU principles. “We stand ready to work together with the US on the implementation of the comprehensive Peace Plan for Gaza,” Costa affirmed, underscoring the bloc’s willingness to collaborate on the board’s original, limited scope as a transitional administration for the war-torn region.
However, he did not mince words on the broader implications, stating: “We have serious doubts about a number of elements in the charter of the Board of Peace related to its scope, its governance and its compatibility with the UN Charter.”
This statement crystallized the EU’s core concerns.
The Charter of the Board of Peace, as obtained by EUalive, establishes an international organization with a broad mandate for peace-building, a unique governance structure centered on a lifelong Chairman (Donald J. Trump), invitation-only membership, significant financial requirements for permanent status ($1 billion contribution), and powers that could position it as an alternative to established multilateral frameworks like the United Nations.
While the Charter explicitly states it operates “in accordance with international law” (Article 1) and does not impose obligations without member consent (e.g., Article 2.2(b)), its provisions raise several potential conflicts with the obligations of EU member states under key EU treaties, particularly the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the principle of sincere cooperation.
Undermining EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) Unity and Loyalty Obligations
Relevant EU Provisions: Under TEU Article 24(3), member states must “support the Union’s external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity” and “refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations.” TEU Article 4(3) reinforces the principle of sincere cooperation, requiring states to facilitate EU tasks and abstain from measures that could jeopardize EU objectives. CFSP decisions are typically unanimous and binding (TEU Article 31). Potential collision with the Charter: the Board’s broad, open-ended mission (Article 1: promoting peace “in areas affected or threatened by conflict”) extends beyond Gaza to potentially any global hotspot, including those where the EU has established common positions (e.g., Ukraine, Middle East peace process, or Arctic security). Joining individually – without EU coordination – could fragment EU foreign policy, especially since the Board invites controversial actors like Russia and Belarus (per public reports on memberships), against whom the EU maintains sanctions under CFSP decisions. This might impair EU cohesion, as seen in criticisms that the Board rivals the UN (TEU Article 21 commits the EU to effective multilateralism centered on the UN).
EU states like France and Sweden have clearly declined participation citing this global focus and rivalry concerns. For instance, if a Board decision (e.g., via Chairman-issued resolutions under Article 9) contradicts an EU stance on sanctions or human rights, a member state could face conflicting obligations.
Conflict with EU values and principles in External Action
Relevant EU Provisions: TEU Article 21 requires the EU’s external actions to be guided by democracy, rule of law, human rights, and respect for the UN Charter. The EU must promote these universally and consolidate them in its relations with the wider world. Potential collision with the Charter: The Board’s governance is highly centralized and undemocratic – e.g., the Chairman has unilateral powers to invite/remove members (Articles 2.1, 2.3), create entities (Article 3.2(b)), veto decisions (Article 4.1(e)), and interpret the Charter (Article 7). Succession is by designation, not election (Article 3.3), and permanent membership is tied to a $1 billion payment (Article 2.2(c)), which critics liken to “pay-to-play” and raise corruption/good governance issues. This structure may clash with EU commitments to democratic multilateralism and anti-corruption (e.g., under the EU’s Global Magnitsky-like sanctions regime). Associating with authoritarian invitees (e.g., Belarus under Lukashenko) could also violate EU human rights standards, especially if the Board engages in peace-building that overlooks these (no explicit human rights safeguards in the Charter beyond general “justice honored” in the Preamble).
Issues with the international legal personality and binding agreements
Relevant EU Provisions: TFEU Articles 216–219 govern the EU’s capacity to conclude international agreements, often requiring Council approval and alignment with EU law. Member states cannot enter agreements that bind the EU or conflict with its exclusive competences (e.g., common commercial policy) or shared ones without coordination. Potential Collision with the Charter: The Board gains international legal personality (Article 6(a)), enabling it to enter contracts, institute proceedings, and negotiate privileges/immunities (Article 6(b)). EU states joining (via consent under Article 11.1) would be bound to support Board operations (Article 2.2(b)), potentially including financial or operational commitments that overlap with EU budgets or aid policies (e.g., Gaza reconstruction, where the EU has committed funds under its Neighborhood Policy). If Board actions (e.g., in subsidiary entities under Article 3.4) diverge from EU positions, this could create dual obligations, breaching sincere cooperation. Legal analyses note the Board’s global ambitions lack UN backing beyond Gaza-specific resolutions, risking conflict with the UN Charter framework the EU upholds.
Financial and dissolution provisions
Relevant EU Provisions: EU budget rules (TFEU Article 310) and anti-corruption frameworks prohibit arrangements that could enable undue influence or fiscal misalignment. Potential collision with the Charter: The $1 billion threshold for permanent membership (Article 2.2(c)) and voluntary funding (Article 5.1) might be viewed as commodifying influence, conflicting with EU transparency norms. The Board’s dissolution rules (Article 10.2: automatic every odd year unless renewed by Chairman) introduce instability, potentially exposing EU states to abrupt liabilities (Article 10.2 requires settling assets/obligations), which could clash with EU fiscal coordination requirements.
The act of individual EU states joining – especially unilaterally – carries high risk of indirect conflict, as it could be seen as impairing EU effectiveness or loyalty (precedents include ECJ cases like Commission v. Greece on breaching CFSP unity).
As Trump continues to reshape global institutions, European leaders may find themselves increasingly on the defensive, with the Board of Peace serving as a litmus test for the future of international cooperation.
Caption: European High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs, Kaja Kallas reacts next to European Council President Antonio Costa during an informal meeting of the members of the European Council in Brussels, Belgium, 22 January 2026. EU leaders are holding an emergency informal summit to address an escalation in transatlantic tensions regarding Greenland and new US trade threats. EPA/OLIVIER HOSLET
Updated: January 23, 2026 - 07:14
