AP (2/19/26) reports that members of the “Board of Peace” have “agreed to deploy troops for an international stabilization force”—and who could be against international stabilization?
It’s not a failsafe test, but it can be a tip off that a journalistic outlet is off its feet when its language falls apart. I give you the Associated Press (2/19/26), describing the actions of a person who rarely strings a coherent sentence together, to hand over billions of US taxpayer dollars to create a global entity. This is the “Board of Peace,” of which Trump has declared himself “Chairman for Life“—because that’s a normal thing—and which Google’s AI describes as “potentially replac[ing] existing international institutions”:
Trump’s vision for the board has morphed since he initiated the group as part of his 20-point peace plan to end the conflict in Gaza. Since the October ceasefire, Trump wants it to have an even more ambitious remit—one that will not only complete the Herculean task of bringing lasting peace between Israel and Hamas but will also help resolve conflicts around the globe.
If you aren’t staggered by the notion of Donald Trump “resolving conflicts around the globe,” every other word still deserves interrogation: Are completing the genocide and mass dislocation of Palestinian people, and violently converting their historic homeland to a playground resort for wealthy internationals, going to now be labeled by the press as “bringing lasting peace,” and “ending the conflict” in Gaza?
But worry not: AP tells us in bold letters, “There are many questions about how the board will work.” That implies that AP will be asking them, or care about the answers. But given no one who had a real problem with the creation of the board itself is cited in the article on its launch, why would we look to AP for critical eyes going forward?
This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Janine Jackson.