The UN-sanctioned Board of Peace announced by Donald Trump earlier this year to rule Gaza is planning a sweeping grant of legal immunity for itself, according to a draft of the resolution obtained by the Guardian. The draft language would also let the organization obtain public property in Gaza “free of charge”.

The four-page resolution, labeled “sensitive but unclassified”, extends broad protections to every member of the Board of Peace and its administrative affiliate, the office of the high representative (OHR), as well as to the Palestinian technocrats, international military forces and nonresident contractors lined up to perform work in Gaza. It defines legal processes from which they would have immunity as “any arrest, detention or legal proceedings in the courts or other entities in Gaza”.

It is unclear if the document is attempting to relieve the Board of Peace and its affiliates from prosecution in international courts, in addition to potential claims in Gaza.

The Board of Peace’s chair, Donald Trump, would have the right to waive someone’s legal immunity, pending majority support from his peace board, the June 2026 draft resolution states.

The seven-member “executive board” that leads the Board of Peace includes Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner; special envoy Steve Witkoff; the president’s chief of staff, Susie Wiles; and his national security adviser, Marco Rubio. Though countries have pledged billions, most have not yet transferred funds to support its work in Gaza and no major contracts have been issued.

The White House referred questions to the Board of Peace.

The Board of Peace did not answer specific questions about the draft resolution, but an official said in a statement: “There is no operative resolution or immunity framework of the kind described in your questions … Any suggestion that this process is designed to create lawlessness or impunity is wrong, misleading and gets the issue entirely backwards.”

The official added that “the suggestion that the President will have a role in establishing or waiving immunity in Gaza [is] categorically false”, and that “the Board will ensure all personnel, contractors, and participating entities follow applicable law and operate under clear rules, oversight, and accountability mechanisms”. The official did not explain what the oversight and accountability would be.

Nickolay Mladenov, a Bulgarian diplomat serving as the Board of Peace’s high representative for Gaza, has been meeting in Cairo this week with Palestinian administrators selected by the Board of Peace to govern Gaza. The discussions have focused on refining the framework for the group’s work in the territory, according to one person familiar with the agenda. The prospective immunity resolution titled “RESOLUTION NO 2026/3” has not been shared with the Palestinian cohort, the person said.

‘No external oversight’

Six lawyers specializing in US contracting law and international armed conflict reviewed the draft resolution for the Guardian.

If the resolution goes into force, they said, it is unclear how Board of Peace officials, soldiers, and contractors would be held accountable if there are shootings or accidents that affect Gaza residents, or even how the group might resolve routine disputes over business or land use there.

US-led reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan were often plagued by controversies of corruption or cases of civilian deaths or abuse at the hands of American contractors, including those working for Blackwater and KBR, who have since faced litigation in US courts. Any reconstruction effort in Gaza could face similar challenges.

“It looks like an attempt to exempt the board, and all of its personnel, from accountability for potential legal violations,” said Emily Schaeffer Omer-Man, an expert in litigating international humanitarian law in Israeli, American and foreign courts.

Several lawyers, including Omer-Man, pointed to the specific risks associated with section 7 of the draft resolution, entitled “Third Party Liability/Claims”, which lays out a system for the Board of Peace to consider and adjudicate any claims for “property loss or damage and for personal injury, illness or death” arising from its work in Gaza.

“They are basically saying there’s no external oversight, including applicable international law regarding occupation,” said Noura Erakat, an international law professor at Rutgers University. “It’s creating a legal system unto itself.”

Contractors have also pressed for clarity about the legal protections afforded for potential work in Gaza, where the Trump-backed peace board has solicited bids for rubble removal, security work and a vast reconstruction effort envisaged there. Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner has described transforming the coastal territory into a site of luxury resorts, hi-tech cities and regional business hubs.

Laws governing international contractors and military forces are usually outlined in “status of forces agreements” between countries, but there is no such document for Gaza. American contractors can be subject to US law for certain crimes even if they operate overseas.

“I would think any company would want a very clear legal framework,” said Doug Brooks, president emeritus of the International Stability Operations Association. “There are liability issues any serious American company would want to be clear about.”

Israeli officials don’t want to negotiate a status of forces agreement in Gaza because Israel doesn’t want to recognize Gaza as a state, one American security contractor said.

“It’s pretty important for political and legal cover and insurance,” the contractor said. “It gives the people of Gaza clarity and comfort around how they’ll be treated and dealt with by contractors they may engage with.”

Free facilities for the Board of Peace

The final section of the Board of Peace’s draft resolution, entitled “Premises of the Board of Peace, OHR, and ISF”, says that the group “shall be provided, free of charge, public premises and facilities needed for the accomplishment of the missions in Gaza”.

Legal experts said that this singular phrase could open the door to illegal confiscation of Palestinian property. It’s not clear which group – Israel, Hamas or the Palestinian Authority – would be responsible for “providing” the Board of Peace with facilities, and under what terms.

The Board of Peace plans to build a base for an international military force, as well as logistics hubs to power its operations there, according to contractors involved in the process. The international force is intended to assist with disarming Hamas, which is a crucial step in Trump’s peace plan. Israel has refused to proceed with steps outlined by a November 2025 ceasefire agreement if Hamas continues to bear arms.

“By unilaterally declaring the power to seize Palestinian land, property and buildings for their own use without consent, compensation or readdress, the Board of Peace is taking a page out of Israel’s repressive playbook,” said Omar Shakir, executive director at Dawn, a non-profit dedicated to investigating the impacts of US foreign policy in the Middle East. “Far from signaling an end to genocide, apartheid and occupation, this document suggests entrenching some of its ugliest signature characteristics. This risks not only complicity, but direct perpetration of grave abuses.”

Several attorneys raised questions about the Board of Peace’s legal authority to assume control of public facilities and premises.

“If they don’t have a status of forces agreement with Israel, then it’s not clear what the board’s legal authority would be,” said Brad Parker, associate director of policy at the Center for Constitutional Rights. CCR attorneys have represented victims in US litigation against Blackwater and other American security contractors for alleged abuses in Iraq.

The UN security council authorized the Board of Peace to oversee the administration of Gaza until 31 December 2027. The UN charter affords its diplomats and organizations specific legal protections for work conducted on behalf of UN missions abroad. Language in the Board of Peace’s draft resolution appears to draw on those existing frameworks, which include protections against the arrest or detention of UN diplomats during official work, as well as the seizure of UN property. It’s unclear if the Board of Peace could draw on the UN immunities for its own protection.

The draft says that the resolution will go into force upon Mladenov’s signature. The Board of Peace did not respond to questions about what additional parties, if any, would sign its sweeping resolution.

“How valuable is this document if they are the only ones signing it?” Shakir said.