Trump board of peace Canada

Published: 23 January 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

US President Donald Trump has abruptly withdrawn an invitation for Canada to join his newly announced global “board of peace”, escalating an already tense public exchange with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and highlighting growing divisions among Western allies over Trump’s unconventional approach to global diplomacy.

The withdrawal was announced on Thursday through a post on Trump’s Truth Social platform, where he addressed Carney directly in characteristically blunt terms. In the message, Trump said the board was rescinding its invitation for Canada to join what he described as “the most prestigious Board of Leaders ever assembled, at any time”. The statement marked a sharp reversal from earlier indications that Ottawa had at least been open to participating in the initiative.

Trump unveiled the “board of peace” earlier this week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, portraying it as one of the most consequential international bodies in modern history. According to Trump, the board would play a central role in resolving major global conflicts and reshaping postwar governance arrangements, beginning with Gaza. The body is to be chaired by Trump himself and, despite initially being framed as temporary, has since taken on the appearance of a more permanent institution with significant financial and political commitments attached.

One of the most controversial aspects of the proposal is its funding structure. Trump has said that countries seeking permanent membership must contribute $1bn each to help finance the board’s work. This requirement immediately raised eyebrows among diplomats and policymakers, particularly in liberal democracies accustomed to multilateral institutions with clearer governance rules and accountability mechanisms.

Canada had initially appeared cautiously receptive. Before the Davos meeting, Carney had accepted the invitation in principle, though he emphasised that his government needed time to review the details. Speaking to reporters over the weekend, the Canadian prime minister said officials were still examining “the structure, how it’s going to work, what the financing is for”, stressing that Canada wanted any contribution it made on the international stage to deliver maximum impact.

That cautious stance hardened in the days that followed. On Tuesday, Canada’s finance minister, François-Philippe Champagne, made it clear that Ottawa had no intention of paying the $1bn fee reportedly required for permanent membership. His comments effectively placed Canada at odds with the financial model underpinning Trump’s initiative and appeared to set the stage for the diplomatic rupture that soon followed.

The withdrawal of Canada’s invitation did not occur in isolation. It came against the backdrop of an increasingly public war of words between Trump and Carney during the Davos summit. In a widely circulated speech earlier in the week, Carney warned that the world was witnessing a “rupture” in the long-standing rules-based international order, an order he said had traditionally been overseen by the United States. While he did not name Trump directly, the implication was clear, particularly as he criticised aggressive unilateral behaviour and the erosion of multilateral norms.

Trump, for his part, seemed keenly aware of Carney’s remarks. In his own address at Davos on Wednesday, he delivered a pointed comment aimed squarely at the Canadian leader. “Canada lives because of the United States,” Trump said. “Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements.” The remark was widely interpreted as a reminder of Canada’s economic and security ties to its southern neighbour, and it sparked swift reactions back home.

Carney responded firmly the following day. “Canada doesn’t live because of the United States,” he said. “Canada thrives because we are Canadian.” The exchange resonated strongly with Canadian audiences and underscored a broader assertion of national independence at a time when relations with Washington appear increasingly strained.

By Thursday evening, Trump’s decision to withdraw the invitation to Canada formalised what had already become an open rift. Neither Carney’s office nor the White House immediately responded to requests for comment, leaving the Truth Social post as the clearest indication of the administration’s position.

Trump has remained unapologetic about both the board and his approach to diplomacy. Speaking in Switzerland on Thursday, he doubled down on the scope of the initiative, saying that once the board was fully formed, “we can do pretty much whatever we want to do”, adding that its actions would be taken “in conjunction with the United Nations”. That assertion has raised further questions among international law experts and diplomats about how the board would interact with existing multilateral frameworks and whether it might undermine established institutions.

The board’s creation has already received a degree of formal international recognition. Its establishment was endorsed by a United Nations Security Council resolution as part of Trump’s Gaza peace plan. However, UN officials have been careful to limit expectations. UN spokesperson Rolando Gomez said on Thursday that the organisation’s engagement with the board would be confined strictly to the context of that resolution, suggesting a narrower role than Trump’s rhetoric might imply.

Membership of the board so far reflects a mix of regional and political alignments. Countries that have agreed to join include Argentina, Bahrain, Morocco, Pakistan and Turkey. Notably absent are several of Washington’s closest traditional allies. Britain, France and Italy have all indicated that they will not join the board for now, citing concerns over its structure, mandate and financing. Their reluctance underscores a broader unease in Europe and elsewhere about Trump’s preference for personalised, leader-driven diplomacy over established multilateral processes.

For Canada, the episode highlights a delicate balancing act. Ottawa has long sought to maintain close ties with Washington while also projecting itself as a defender of multilateralism and the rules-based order. Carney’s refusal to commit large sums of money to an initiative with unclear governance reflects both fiscal caution and political principle, particularly at a time when domestic priorities and global uncertainties are competing for attention.

Analysts say Trump’s decision to publicly withdraw the invitation may play well with his domestic base, reinforcing his image as a leader unwilling to tolerate dissent or half-measures from allies. At the same time, it risks further alienating partners whose cooperation the United States relies on to address global challenges, from conflict resolution to climate change and economic stability.

The controversy surrounding the “board of peace” also raises deeper questions about the future of international cooperation. Trump has framed the initiative as a bold alternative to what he portrays as slow, ineffective global institutions. Critics counter that bypassing established mechanisms in favour of ad hoc bodies led by a single powerful figure could weaken international norms and concentrate decision-making in ways that lack transparency and accountability.

As the dust settles from the Davos summit, the immediate implications of Canada’s exclusion from the board remain uncertain. The initiative is still in its early stages, and its effectiveness, legitimacy and longevity have yet to be tested. What is clear, however, is that the episode has exposed fault lines among Western allies and highlighted contrasting visions of global leadership at a moment of profound geopolitical change.

For Trump, the withdrawal of Canada’s invitation sends a clear message about the terms on which he expects countries to engage with his flagship peace initiative. For Carney, it reinforces his argument that Canada must chart its own course, even when that means pushing back against pressure from its most powerful ally. And for the wider international community, it offers an early glimpse of how Trump’s second-term foreign policy may continue to challenge, and disrupt, familiar diplomatic norms.