Authoritarians, Strongmen and Dictators: Who Is on Trump’s “Board of Peace”?

As former U.S. president Donald Trump promotes what he calls a personal “Board of Peace,” critics and analysts are scrutinizing the unusual list of leaders he claims could help end major global conflicts. The group, according to Trump’s own statements and campaign rhetoric, consists largely of strongmen and authoritarian rulers — figures he says he can personally influence through direct relationships and deal-making instincts.
Rather than relying on traditional multilateral institutions or long-standing diplomatic frameworks, Trump has repeatedly argued that peace can be achieved through one-on-one negotiations with leaders he considers “tough but practical.” This approach challenges decades of U.S. foreign policy doctrine that emphasizes alliances, human rights standards, and institutional diplomacy.
A Circle of Strong Leaders
Among the most prominent figures Trump has referenced is Vladimir Putin, whom he has described in the past as “smart” and “strong.” Trump claims that a direct line of communication with Moscow could bring rapid de-escalation in the Russia-Ukraine war. However, critics argue that relying on personal rapport with a leader accused of war crimes risks legitimizing aggression rather than curbing it.
Another central figure in Trump’s vision is Kim Jong-un. Trump famously met Kim three times during his presidency, the first sitting U.S. leader to do so. He continues to point to these meetings as proof that dialogue with isolated regimes is possible. Supporters say the encounters reduced immediate tensions on the Korean Peninsula, while skeptics note that North Korea has since expanded its nuclear and missile programs.
China’s president Xi Jinping is also often mentioned as someone Trump believes he can “work with” to stabilize global affairs. Trump argues that his prior relationship with Xi could help prevent further confrontation over Taiwan and trade. Analysts, however, caution that Beijing’s strategic ambitions and authoritarian governance style make personal diplomacy an unreliable tool for conflict prevention.
Regional Power Brokers
In Europe, Trump has shown admiration for Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orbán, a nationalist leader criticized for weakening democratic institutions. Orbán has positioned himself as a mediator between Russia and the West, and Trump has praised his leadership style as decisive and patriotic. This has fueled concern among European officials that Trump’s peace vision aligns more with illiberal governments than democratic partners.
In the Middle East, Saudi Arabia’s crown prince Mohammed bin Salman has also been cited by Trump as a key figure capable of stabilizing regional conflicts. Trump has defended the Saudi leadership despite international criticism over human rights and the war in Yemen, emphasizing economic ties and security cooperation instead.
A Different Philosophy of Peace
Trump’s “Board of Peace” reflects a worldview that prioritizes power politics over values-based diplomacy. His approach suggests that conflicts are best resolved through direct bargaining between dominant leaders rather than through institutions like the United Nations or NATO. In this model, personal trust and perceived strength replace formal agreements and legal frameworks.
Supporters argue that this method can cut through bureaucracy and produce quick results. They cite Trump’s role in the Abraham Accords between Israel and several Arab states as evidence that unconventional diplomacy can succeed. They also claim that engaging authoritarian leaders does not mean endorsing them, but recognizing political realities.
Opponents see serious risks. By centering peace efforts on authoritarian figures, they warn that Trump’s strategy could marginalize democratic allies and weaken international norms. Human rights groups fear that authoritarian leaders would gain legitimacy without being pressured to reform. Diplomats also question whether personal relationships can survive leadership changes or shifting geopolitical interests.
Global Reaction
International responses to the idea of a “Board of Peace” have been mixed. Some governments welcome any initiative that promises to reduce conflict, especially amid wars in Ukraine and Gaza. Others see it as a symbolic concept with little practical structure or accountability.
European officials privately express concern that such a board would bypass NATO and EU mechanisms. Asian allies worry that informal diplomacy could lead to unpredictable shifts in policy toward China and North Korea. Meanwhile, authoritarian states appear open to the idea, viewing it as recognition of their central role in shaping global outcomes.
Conclusion
Trump’s proposed “Board of Peace” is less an institution than a reflection of his personal diplomatic style — one that favors strong leaders, direct negotiation, and transactional deals. Whether this approach could truly end major wars or instead empower authoritarianism remains one of the most contentious questions in contemporary global politics. What is clear is that it represents a sharp departure from traditional U.S. foreign policy and a redefinition of how peace might be pursued in an era of rising strongmen.