Constitutional Roadblock: Italy Opts Out of Trump's 'Board of Peace'

Italy Says Cannot Join Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ Because of Constitution

Italy has officially announced its inability to participate in former US President Donald Trump’s ambitious “Board of Peace,” citing a fundamental conflict with its national constitution. This decision marks another significant hurdle for the self-styled international peace-building body, which has faced skepticism and rejections from several European nations.

The Constitutional Barrier to Entry

Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani clarified the nation’s position, stating that the discrepancies betweenItaly’s constitutionand the proposed charter of the Board of Peace are “insurmountable from a legal standpoint.” At the heart of the matter is Article 11 of the Italian constitution, which permits the country to join international organizations only when there are “conditions of equality with other states.”

The Board of Peace’s structure, as outlined in its charter, designates Trump as a veto-wielding chairman with final authority on its interpretation. This concentration of power in a single leader, effectively placing one member above others, directly contravenes the principle of equality enshrined in Italy’s constitutional framework. Consequently, this prevents Italy from formally aligning with the initiative.

Broader European Reservations and the Board’s Mandate

Italy's stance mirrors that of several other major European players, including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, all of whom have refrained from joining the controversial board. Launched in Davos, Switzerland, and controversially linked to Trump's earlier ambitions regarding Greenland, the Board of Peace was initially envisioned as a transitional governing body for post-war Gaza. However, its expansive charter, which notably omits any specific mention of the war-torn Palestinian enclave, has raised eyebrows and fueled concerns that the global conflict mediator could seek to overshadow the established role of the United Nations.

Despite the close relationship between Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Board chairman Trump, Italy’s decision underscores a commitment to its legal principles over political alliances. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has previously criticized Trump's plans, reiterating that “The basic responsibility for international peace and security lies with UN, lies with the Security Council.”

Italy’s Continued Commitment to Global Peace Initiatives

WhileItaly says it cannot join Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ because of constitution, Minister Tajani affirmed the country's unwavering dedication to global peace. He emphasized that Italy would remain “available to discuss peace initiatives” and highlighted concrete steps already being taken. Following a “very positive” meeting with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Vice President JD Vance during the Winter Olympics in Milan, Tajani confirmed Italy’s readiness to “do our part in Gaza by training the police.” This demonstrates Italy's willingness to engage constructively in conflict resolution through alternative, constitutionally compliant avenues.

Controversies and the Road Ahead for the Board

The Board of Peace itself has not been without controversy. Reports suggest that members are being asked to pay $1 billion for a permanent seat, leading to widespread criticism that it operates as a “pay-to-play” alternative to the United Nations. The board is tentatively preparing for its inaugural meeting in Washington, D.C., on February 19, a day after a scheduled meeting between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, a key Trump ally, has confirmed his attendance at this first gathering. Trump's initial invitations extended to approximately 60 countries, though at the time of reporting, the official website lists only 26 participating nations, including key Gaza mediators Qatar and Egypt. The ongoing challenges highlight the complexities facing new international governance initiatives, especially those perceived to bypass or undermine existing global frameworks.