$70 Billion Hole: Who Pays?

Trump’s new “Board of Peace” is positioning itself to police the United Nations—while committing $10 billion in U.S. funds with key details still unanswered.

Quick Take

President Trump announced a $10 billion U.S. contribution to the new Board of Peace during its first meeting in Washington on Feb. 19, 2026.
The Board of Peace was created under Trump’s Gaza peace plan and now signals ambitions beyond Gaza, raising questions about how it would interact with the U.N.
Other countries pledged about $7 billion toward reconstruction, while Gaza’s overall rebuilding cost has been estimated around $70 billion.
Security plans discussed include an International Stabilization Force and a new Gaza police structure, but Hamas disarmament remains unresolved.

A $10 Billion Pledge, With Major Questions Still Open

President Trump used the inaugural Board of Peace meeting on Feb. 19, 2026, to announce that the United States will contribute $10 billion to the body he proposed in 2025 as part of a Gaza peace plan. Reports from multiple outlets describe the pledge as the largest single commitment announced at the meeting. One central unresolved issue is basic: the administration did not specify the funding source for the $10 billion contribution.

That missing detail matters because accountability and oversight are what taxpayers expect first—especially after years when Washington normalized vague spending, enormous bills, and “trust us later” budgeting. The available reporting does not describe how the Board of Peace will track expenditures, how projects will be audited, or what enforcement tools exist if pledged funds are misused. For Americans, the immediate question is whether this effort will be transparent, measurable, and time-limited.

What the Board of Peace Is—and Why the U.N. Angle Matters

Trump pitched the Board of Peace as part of a 20-point plan aimed at ending the Gaza war and stabilizing the region after a ceasefire took hold in late 2025. At the Washington meeting, Trump framed the body as a mechanism that would “almost be looking over the United Nations,” implying a supervisory role rather than just coordination. That concept reflects longstanding criticism that international institutions too often drift into bureaucracy without results.

The reporting also shows why some U.S. allies appear cautious. More than a dozen countries participated as observers rather than full members, signaling that the Board’s structure, authority, or long-term mission is not fully settled. Even the headcount of participating nations varies across reports, ranging from “more than 40” to roughly 50. What is clear is that the Board is attempting to create a new lane in global diplomacy—one that could bypass the U.N.’s traditional gatekeeping.

Gaza Reconstruction: Big Numbers, Bigger Gaps

International pledges announced alongside the U.S. commitment included about $7 billion from nine countries as an initial down payment for Gaza reconstruction. The scale of need remains far larger: Gaza’s reconstruction has been estimated at roughly $70 billion, leaving a major shortfall even if all pledges materialize quickly. The United Nations separately committed $2 billion in humanitarian assistance, and FIFA pledged $75 million for soccer-related projects, according to reporting.

Those figures underline a hard reality for policymakers: reconstruction without security becomes a cash bonfire, while security without governance becomes permanent occupation by another name. The reporting indicates the Board has expanded its vision beyond rebuilding physical infrastructure toward shaping a future administrative model for Gaza. That makes the Board’s governance choices—who is included, who is excluded, and who controls decisions—at least as important as the raw dollar amounts.

Security Force Plans and the Unresolved Hamas Disarmament Problem

Meeting details described plans for an International Stabilization Force, with five countries pledging troops and an outlined goal of deploying 20,000 troops while establishing 12,000 police officers. Initial deployment was expected to focus on Rafah, a major population center. Reporting also notes that about 2,000 Palestinians applied to join a transitional police force, suggesting some interest in building an alternative security structure—if it can operate credibly and safely.

The biggest obstacle remains Hamas disarmament. Reports describe Hamas promising disarmament while also remaining reluctant, citing fears of Israeli reprisals. That unresolved issue influences everything else: Israeli troop withdrawal, humanitarian access, and whether any policing structure can function without being undermined by armed factions. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s warning that “there is no plan B” underscores the stakes: if the plan collapses, the alternative described is a return to war.

President Trump says U.S. will contribute $10 billion to Board of Peace. https://t.co/K10GJGuOZd

— CBS News (@CBSNews) February 19, 2026

For American conservatives watching closely, the key test is whether this initiative becomes a disciplined, results-driven replacement for globalist process politics—or whether it repeats the same failures under a new label. The available reporting does not yet provide the enforcement and auditing details that would settle that question. Until those mechanisms are defined, the Board of Peace will be judged as much by what it clarifies next as by what it announced at its debut.