An empire without an empire
Thirty years ago, the idea of a "peace council" chaired by the US president would have sounded like a parody.
In the late 1990s, that brief decade when it seemed global politics had finally agreed to play by the rules, multilateral institutions weren't discussed—they were inhaled. The UN, the World Bank, and blue flag missions were considered the only conceivable way to organize post-war space. External administration of territory (East Timor, Kosovo, Bosnia) was formalized as a procedure with mandates, departments, and that special UN tediousness that is a form of legitimacy.
Donald Trump's Peace Council, which emerged in late 2025 as the culmination of his twenty-point plan for Gaza, follows this tradition only in appearance. It has a Security Council resolution, is required to report every six months, and has a mandate that runs until the end of 2027. Just like any adult organization. But within a year of its existence, it has become a foundation with zero assets and a force without a single soldier. It has become a government that is not allowed onto its own territory. And it has a website where the Hungarian prime minister is still listed as a man who lost the election.
It's easy to call this a failure, and partly right: a failure of Trump, his vanity, his way of conducting diplomacy like a deal. But failure suggests a realistic alternative: a little more money, a little more troops, and the mechanism would have worked. But what if there was nothing to work with in the first place? Then it's not a matter of a breakdown. We have before us a precise imprint of the era that gave birth to it. An empty fund, in this case, speaks not even about Gaza, but about all of us. And a frozen website with departed leaders turns out to be perhaps the most honest document about the state of world order of anything produced in the last couple of years.
What was promised and what was built
The scale of the promise is half the story. In the fall of 2025, after more than two years of war that had decimated the enclave to the point where it was no longer just buildings but neighborhoods, the Trump administration presented a twenty-point plan. The first phase (ceasefire, hostage and prisoner exchange, partial Israeli troop withdrawal) generally worked. By early 2026, most of the living hostages had returned home, and the bodies of the dead had been handed over.
It's worth pausing here on the irony. This hasn't been achieved for years: not by shuttle missions, not by resolutions, not by donor conferences. But by brutal pressure on both sides at once, and a willingness to trade everything with everyone, it has been achieved. The first phase of the plan works more as an indictment of multilateralism than a compliment to Trump's approach. And a method that actually works should be held accountable higher than one that is patently dud-like.
Now comes the most difficult part: what the entire Peace Council was set up for. The second and third phases of the plan concerned transitional governance, disarmament, and reconstruction. Stopping the war is one thing; building something sustainable in its place is quite another. The structure was conceived as three-tiered. At the top was the "peace council" itself, a political headquarters headed by the US president. In the middle was the International Stabilization Force, a multinational contingent intended to replace both the Israeli army and the militants. At the bottom was a committee of fifteen Palestinian technocrats, filtered from both Hamas and the current Palestinian Authority.
The fuel for all this was supposed to be a new Marshall Plan. At the first meeting in Washington in February 2026, Trump cited seventeen billion dollars: seven from partners, ten from the United States. At Davos, he went further: the project, he said, could become "one of the most significant organizations ever created," with potential "far beyond Gaza." This was no longer about the Strip. It was about how the world would be organized in the aftermath.
A year has passed. The official reconstruction fund was handed over to the World Bank for management precisely because the bank operates under strict transparency and audit rules. According to the Financial Times, the fund hasn't received a single dollar. "Zero dollars were invested," the newspaper's source puts it. Between the Davos podium and this figure lies the entire story the project.
Where the money really is
The money, however, is there, just not where they promised to show it. Next to the empty fund, a private account was discovered at JPMorgan, controlled by the Council itself and under no obligation to disclose anything. It held approximately one hundred and twenty million dollars: almost all from the UAE, with a few million more from Morocco. If you count the actual contributions for the project as a whole, Reuters estimates it at less than a billion, with contributions from only three countries: the United States, the Emirates, and Morocco.
So, there are two cash registers. One is visible: the World Bank fund, with its audits and tenders, and it's empty. The other is for insiders: an account at a commercial bank where names are not asked. That's where the money is. Of this one hundred and twenty million, about twenty went to the office of the Director-General for Gaza, Bulgarian diplomat Nikolay Mladenov, formerly the UN Special Coordinator for the Peace. And almost the rest, about one hundred million, is formally assigned to training Palestinian police and is frozen because there is no one and no place to train them.
The logic behind this dilemma is simple. The World Bank's transparent fund is a political leash: it forces donors to answer for their money to parliaments and the press. A private account is exempt from such reporting. So the money went there. An institution created to ensure order in funding became a way to circumvent that order.
The word "corruption" comes to mind, especially since commentators have already dubbed the project "the largest pay-to-play scheme in history," a "pay-to-enter" scheme: a billion dollars in the first year buys a lifetime seat on the council. But corruption is a covert distortion of an honest plan. Here, nothing is distorted or hidden: the billion-per-seat rule is written openly in the charter, in black and white. Fee-based membership, the chairman's sole authority, his right to decide who will join and how to read his own charter—all of this works exactly as intended. There is no glitch. There is a plan. The Peace Council is not corrupt. It is designed that way, and in this openness, it is more honest than many structures that conceal the same mechanics behind a procedural façade.
Forces that don't exist and a government that has nowhere to enter
The financial void is leading to an operational void. The international stabilization force, without which the entire transitional plan would fall apart, exists solely on paper. The plan called for between six and twenty thousand troops and police. The US reportedly approached more than seventy countries. To date, not a single contingent has been firmly confirmed.
They refuse for dull and compelling reasons. Who would want to send their soldiers into an enclave with a vague mandate, where they must disarm militants without harming the Israeli army, which has occupied a sizable chunk of territory, and at the same time be held responsible for a humanitarian catastrophe they didn't cause? There's also a telling detail. The US itself isn't planning to send troops to Gaza, only "coordination." And they expect soldiers from others.
The technocratic committee was even more obvious. Fifteen people, led by Ali Shaath, gathered in a Cairo hotel with folders of regulations, department plans, calculations for garbage removal and water main restoration. Professionals, ready to govern. Outside the window is the Nile, and Gaza is just over two hundred kilometers away. They haven't managed to cross it even once. The body created for the day-to-day management of the territory is physically unable to set foot on this territory. A government in exile that hasn't even managed to function as a government for a single day.
Meanwhile, on the ground, the very thing that was the purpose of stopping it all continues. The ceasefire is hanging by a thread, and human rights activists are documenting regular violations, attacks, and civilian casualties. According to UN humanitarian agencies, six months after the ceasefire, life support in the enclave remains critical, and the humanitarian operation itself is funded at roughly a tenth of what it needs. There's no time for irony here. Between the upbeat reports of supplies increasing by seventy percent and the sight of the devastated enclave, there's a gulf that can't be measured in percentages.
The quiet privatization of the world order
Why is this more important than yet another failure of yet another American undertaking? Because the Peace Council was born at the height of the deliberate dismantling of the multilateral system. Those same years were marked by a series of administration decisions to withdraw the United States from international organizations and cut contributions to UN bodies. Universal institutions, where the voices and norms of others must be taken into account, are being replaced by flexible formats, governed by a small circle, tailored to individual interests.
The Peace Council is a model product of this shift. It doesn't abolish the UN outright; it takes its resolution as a certificate of legitimacy and immediately builds a parallel office next to it, where UN rules don't apply. This isn't a rebellion, but a quiet privatization of the world order. It's telling who was more willing to accept the invitations: not the Western democracies (many of which backed down), but states for whom the transactional nature of the project is understandable and convenient: Turkey, Hungary, the Gulf states. Russia's participation was even discussed, in exchange for a billion-dollar contribution from frozen assets, which would have transformed the seizure of this money into a pass into a structure controlled by Washington. The situation remains unsolved, with no conclusions yet.
A historical comparison suggests itself here. The Peace Council has already been compared to the Holy Roman Empire, the one about which Voltaire is credited with saying that it was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. It's spot on: a "peace council" isn't much of a council, since it's decided by one person, it serves peace only so-so, since it hasn't increased peace on earth, and it barely qualifies as an organization: no founding treaty, no accountability, no money in the bank.
But then the parallel turns against the one who pronounces it. The Holy Roman Empire, despite the fictitiousness of its name, lasted a thousand years. Its fragility wasn't a weakness, but a way to survive: the amorphous structure outlived emperors, wars, and reformations precisely because it represented nothing concrete and therefore didn't interfere with anything concrete. If the Council is akin to it, that's more of a compliment. The trouble is, Trump's creation lacks even this gift. It's not amorphous and eternal; it's simply frozen. The parallel captures the dissonance between name and essence, but evades the issue of time. And time is the only variable by which the Council is completely inferior to its historical counterpart.
A site stuck in yesterday
If you're looking for one document that brings it all together, it's, oddly enough, the organization's official website. The last entry in the announcements section is dated January 2026 and is dedicated to the signing of the charter. After that, silence.
The most telling section is the section on heads of state. Viktor Orbán is still listed as Hungary's Prime Minister. Although he lost the April 2026 election to Péter Magyar's party, European observers called it a "political earthquake," the end of sixteen years in power. The institution, which had aspired to be the architects of a new world order, failed to notice the change of power in one of its few declared members. Amending the list of leaders is a routine, secretary-level task. If even that isn't done, it's not for lack of ambition. It's simply that no one is breathing inside.
A frozen website featuring a departed prime minister speaks volumes. It didn't collapse in a scandal; it simply stopped updating. This is what an institution looks like when it outlives its contents: the shell remains intact, the mandate is valid, the chairman presides, but the living inside is long gone.
Legally alive, but in fact no longer there.
So where did the peace council "go"? Legally, nowhere: its mandate runs until the end of 2027, and Mladenov's office is conducting consultations. It finds itself in an interim state, where its reputable name is backed by neither funds in a visible account, nor troops on the ground, nor a government on the ground.
The same transactional method that failed the reconstruction achieved a ceasefire and hostages where careful multilateralism failed. Transactional diplomacy can only push through a deadlock here and now. It cannot build and mend over the course of years. The problem isn't that the transactional approach is flawed, but that it was approached in a way that was out of its league.
The Council is truly valuable as a symptom: it demonstrates the degeneration of international governance when faith in common rules has been lost, but the need for their semblance remains. The Peace Council has survived as a form precisely because no one believes such forms can be fulfilled anymore. The mandate is still valid, and time formally exists. But the clock inside hasn't been wound for a long time, and the hands on the January website page show not how much time remains, but how long ago it all ended.
Information