Gaza Board of Peace World Bank Fund Holds Zero Dollars Four Months After Launch

Four months after the Trump administration unveiled the Board of Peace, the World Bank-administered fund established to finance Gaza reconstruction has received no donor contributions. The fund, administered by the World Bank and endorsed by the United Nations, has received no money from donors, according to a source familiar with the board's operations who spoke to AFP, corroborating reporting first published by the Financial Times. ^[1][2] The gap between pledged amounts and actual disbursements raises immediate questions for lawyers and policy staff tracking the board's legal authority, oversight architecture, and operational capacity.

Member states pledged $7 billion for the board's Gaza "relief package," and Trump promised a further $10 billion in U.S. funding. ^[1][3] Members of the board are required to pay $1 billion for a permanent spot, according to its charter. ^[2] Nickolay Mladenov was appointed by the United States as High Representative for Gaza and tasked with leading the newly formed Board of Peace, an international body designed to oversee governance, reconstruction, and security coordination in the territory. ^[4] Alongside Mladenov on the Board of Peace are Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, and former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, among others, according to the White House. ^[5]

Rather than route contributions through the World Bank mechanism, donors have directed funds to a separate JPMorgan account held by the board. The board has received donations directly via its JPMorgan account, according to the board's spokesperson and another person familiar with the arrangements. While the World Bank must report on the financial position of the Gaza fund to contributors and board members, no independent transparency requirements are in place for the JPMorgan account. ^[1][3] A board official confirmed the arrangement in terms that effectively defer any disclosure timeline: the official said "a number of options were established to receive funding," including the World Bank mechanism, and that "contributors have opted to use other options," adding that the board "will report its financials" to its own executive board "at a time deemed appropriate." ^[1][3] That formulation, combined with the absence of independent reporting obligations, is likely to intensify congressional scrutiny of the entity's financial controls. U.S. lawmakers have already pressed the Trump administration for more information about the board, its operations, and legal status. ^[1]

Operating funds to date have come from two bilateral contributors. Roughly $3 million from Morocco and $20 million from the UAE have gone toward running the office of postwar Gaza envoy Nickolay Mladenov and paying the Palestinian technocratic committee set up to administer the territory. ^[6] The UAE recently provided $100 million to train a new Gaza police force, but the program has not begun and the funds remain frozen. ^[3] On the U.S. side, disbursement is similarly stalled. The State Department intends to reallocate approximately $1.2 billion in aid spending for projects related to the board's agenda, but those funds, which would not go directly to the board, have also yet to be spent. ^[1][3] The State Department also wants to provide approximately $50 million directly to the board to fund operations, but that money has not yet been distributed. ^[3] A senior congressional aide offered a direct characterization of the situation: "None of that money has gone to the board. None of that money is being managed by the Board of Peace. And State tells us there's no intent to have any of that money managed by the Board of Peace." ^[1] Officials have assured Congress that the board will not be allowed to use U.S. funds until financial controls and other systems necessary to receive such funds are in place. ^[1]

The board's operational paralysis has a structural dimension beyond funding. Legal questions have emerged over the board's planned role inside Gaza, with a U.N. Security Council resolution describing the board as a "transitional administration" until the Palestinian Authority returns to control of the territory. ^[3] The board has begun soliciting contracts for future reconstruction and security projects, though no contracts have been awarded. ^[2] The board's own spokesperson attributed that to conditions on the ground, stating there is no authority in place "to handle the flow of services and goods that are imagined as part of the plan," citing Hamas' continued presence and the absence of a functioning security environment. [POLITICO] An EU-U.N. assessment published in April estimated that more than $71 billion will be needed over the next decade for the reconstruction of Gaza. ^[7]

The Board of Peace responded to the Financial Times reporting on social media, characterizing it as an effort to undermine confidence in the initiative. The board stated that the Financial Times article "tries desperately to sow doubt about the commitment of the US and partners to the Board of Peace," arguing that the outlet cited "just one of many funding mechanisms" and acknowledged that the board "is being funded through other mechanisms." ^[6] The response did not address the absence of independent financial reporting for those alternative mechanisms. The board's funding structure, its relationship to World Bank and U.N. oversight frameworks, and the State Department's preconditions for releasing U.S. appropriations are expected to remain active lines of inquiry for congressional oversight staff and international partners tracking the Gaza reconstruction timeline.