The Board of Peace was first suggested by Trump in September alongside a proposal to end the Gaza conflict. Invitations sent last week broadened the initiative’s mandate to global disputes and set a $1 billion contribution requirement for countries wishing to remain members beyond three years, according to a draft charter seen by Reuters.

Diplomats and analysts have expressed caution, noting that the initiative could overlap with or undermine the United Nations’ traditional role in mediating international conflicts. Many see the proposal as an example of Trump’s transactional approach to diplomacy, where economic leverage is used to achieve political compliance.

Targeting iconic French exports risks escalating trade tensions with a key U.S. ally. France’s wine and champagne industries could face serious economic repercussions, while U.S. importers may encounter higher costs, potentially affecting consumers. The threat also raises questions about the politicization of tariffs, which have traditionally been used for trade, not foreign-policy bargaining.

The inclusion of Russian President Vladimir Putin among potential board members adds a controversial dimension, signaling a willingness to bypass established multilateral frameworks. Some experts warn this could strain U.S. relations with allies and complicate international cooperation on security issues.

Observers say Trump’s strategy reflects a broader shift from rules-based diplomacy toward personalized, coercive negotiations. While such tactics may produce short-term leverage, they risk long-term damage to alliances and global conflict-resolution norms. How many countries are willing to pay both the financial and political costs of joining the Board of Peace will determine whether the initiative becomes a meaningful diplomatic forum or remains largely symbolic.