Former CIA station chief Dan Hoffman slammed into the hard truths on Fox & Friends First, warning Americans that the new Board of Peace looks promising on paper but will face “inherent challenges” — especially when it comes to inviting Moscow to the table. Hoffman’s straight talk is exactly what we need: realism, not wishful diplomacy pretending that Vladimir Putin will play by rules he has never respected.
President Trump used the World Economic Forum in Davos to roll out the Board of Peace as the U.S.-led mechanism to supervise ceasefires and reconstruction in Gaza, pitching it as a practical alternative to a bloated, ineffective United Nations. The rollout drew a mixed reception, with dozens invited and many key Western allies hesitant to sign on because this new board could upend long-established multilateral norms.
At the same summit, Mr. Trump made headlines again by insisting he will not use the U.S. military to acquire Greenland and saying he seeks immediate negotiations — a blunt, America-first posture that put allies on notice and forced an overdue discussion about Arctic security. Conservatives should admire that bluntness: presidents who hedge get ignored, while presidents who set clear national objectives get results.
The administration even extended an invitation to Russia to join the Board, a move that has alarmed skeptics and prompted Moscow to say it will study the offer — with some reports even suggesting Putin floated using frozen Russian assets to buy influence. Hoffman and others are right to question whether inviting an aggressor into a leadership body is prudent; peace cannot be brokered if the broker is also arming belligerents.
Hoffman’s warning that bringing Russia in will be “difficult” is not pessimism — it is hard-headed strategy. Conservatives understand that peace built on naiveté collapses quickly; this board must be tough, principled, and unwilling to legitimize bad actors without verifiable concessions. The last thing America needs is a paper agreement that hands the moral high ground back to dictators.
Trump’s willingness to create an alternative to the U.N. — and to demand real money and accountability from participants — is precisely the kind of disruptive thinking that advances American interests. If nations won’t shoulder their share, Washington must stop subsidizing global weakness with our tax dollars and our soldiers’ blood, and this Board of Peace could be a vehicle to enforce that principle.
Yes, the Greenland gambit rattled friends and foes alike, and some of the diplomatic theater could have been handled with more polish. But politics is the art of the deal, and no one ever built a better position by apologizing first; Trump’s Davos line forced the world to reckon with national-security realities in the Arctic and reminded NATO members they must pull their weight.
Patriots should back Hoffman’s sober counsel and Trump’s muscle: build a Board that prioritizes results, refuses to reward aggression, and puts American security and prosperity first. We do not need another global club of hand-wringers — we need an organization that rebuilds, enforces, and secures peace on terms that protect liberty and deter our adversaries.
The coming weeks — after the Jan. 21 Davos announcements and Hoffman’s Jan. 22 commentary on Fox — will test whether this administration can turn bold ideas into durable American leadership. If conservatives hold the line for clarity, strength, and fairness, this country will be safer and more respected for it.
