Board of Peace pledges for Gaza reconstruction and aid have topped $5 billion, President Donald Trump said on February 15, 2026, as he described plans for personnel support tied to a UN-authorized stabilization and policing framework.
What Trump says was pledged
Trump said member states of a newly formed group he calls the “Board of Peace” will formally announce more than $5 billion in pledges for Gaza reconstruction and humanitarian efforts at the group’s first official meeting on February 19, 2026. He also said participating countries have agreed to provide thousands of personnel to support a UN-authorized stabilization force and local policing in Gaza.
The immediate consequence is that the administration is trying to move the Gaza debate from emergency aid to governance and security—who controls territory, who provides day-to-day policing, and who carries the risk if the ceasefire breaks down.
Who is in the group
Trump has described the Board of Peace as comprising more than 20 countries, including several in the Middle East and a number of non-Western partners. Reporting on the group has noted that some traditional U.S. allies have been cautious about joining or endorsing the initiative.
What is confirmed, and what is still unclear
Trump’s claims center on two big deliverables: money and manpower.
The money
The $5 billion figure is being presented as pledged funding, not necessarily cash already transferred or contracts already signed. The distinction matters because Gaza reconstruction requires a long chain of follow-through—banking permissions, insurance coverage, shipping, contractor mobilization, and on-the-ground access. Pledges can signal political intent, but they do not automatically unlock the commercial machinery that reconstruction depends on.
The manpower
Trump’s personnel claim points to an international footprint meant to stabilize Gaza and support policing under a UN-authorized framework. What remains unclear from public reporting so far is the operational design: command structure, rules of engagement, who pays, how long deployments would last, and how the force would interact with local authorities.
A second uncertainty is participation depth. Some countries may be willing to contribute funding but avoid troops. Others may offer personnel but under strict limits or a defined humanitarian mandate. In previous international stabilization efforts, the mission details—not the announcement—determine whether a plan is credible.
The core political fault line
Even if money is pledged and personnel are offered, the hardest question is governance: who is empowered to police Gaza day to day, and what happens when enforcement collides with armed groups.
Trump framed the personnel plan as supporting stabilization and policing. Parallel reporting has emphasized that violence has continued even with a ceasefire framework in place, underscoring how quickly security realities can outrun diplomatic architecture.
Why “UN-authorized” is doing a lot of work
A UN-authorized framework can provide legal and diplomatic cover for countries that are wary of being seen as acting unilaterally or as a proxy for another state’s security objectives. But authorization alone does not solve implementation problems. Countries still need domestic political approval, and troops still need a mission they can execute without becoming stuck between rival armed actors.
What this means for Gaza residents right now
On the ground, the near-term impact is not a new skyline or rebuilt neighborhoods. It is whether a credible security arrangement can reduce the stop-start cycle that blocks basic recovery: safe movement of people, steady delivery of supplies, and predictable access for repair crews.
The uncomfortable reality is that reconstruction money does not move efficiently in an environment where violence can flare overnight. Even a well-funded plan can stall if contractors cannot operate, if crossings close, or if insurers and logistics firms price the risk as too high.
What to watch next
The February 19, 2026 inaugural meeting is the first test of whether the Board of Peace is more than a label.
Names, amounts, timelines
Watch for whether the administration or member states publish a list of donors, pledge breakdowns, and timelines. Without specifics, the $5 billion number will be hard to evaluate.
Force design and participation
If there is a serious stabilization plan, it will come with details: who leads, who contributes, where forces would deploy, and what conditions trigger expansion or withdrawal.
Evidence that violence is actually declining
The most practical metric is whether security incidents meaningfully decrease over time. Announcements can change political narratives; only sustained calm changes whether reconstruction can physically proceed.