WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump has established a new advisory board, informally dubbed the “Board of Peace,” that includes several internationally recognized political figures known for their authoritarian leadership styles. Among those invited to participate are Vladimir Putin of Russia, Viktor Orban of Hungary, and Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) of Saudi Arabia, according to reports.

The move has drawn immediate criticism and raised concerns about the potential influence of leaders with controversial human rights records. Trump has publicly expressed admiration for these figures in the past, frequently highlighting their perceived strength and effectiveness in governing. For example, he has previously praised Putin's leadership and questioned the legitimacy of investigations into Russian interference in U.S. elections. He has also lauded Orban’s policies despite concerns about democratic backsliding in Hungary and maintained a close relationship with MBS despite ongoing scrutiny of Saudi Arabia’s human rights record, particularly concerning the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

While the White House has not officially confirmed the composition of the board or its specific mandate, sources indicate it is intended to advise the President on international relations and conflict resolution. The selection of these particular individuals, however, suggests a prioritization of strongman leadership and a willingness to engage with regimes often at odds with Western democratic values. The potential impact of this advisory board on U.S. foreign policy remains to be seen, but the inclusion of these controversial figures is already generating significant debate and scrutiny both domestically and internationally.

Trump's longstanding admiration for these leaders is well-documented. He has frequently contrasted their approaches to governance with what he perceives as weakness in Western democracies. The creation of this board appears to formalize and amplify this perspective, potentially reshaping the United States’ engagement with the global community. Critics argue that the board legitimizes authoritarian practices and undermines U.S. commitment to human rights and democratic principles.