President Trump forcefully defended his decision to invite Russian President Vladimir Putin to join his newly proposed “Board of Peace,” pushing back against criticism during a CNN interview and emphasizing results-driven diplomacy over political comfort. The exchange took place in a clip aired January 21, 2026, following Trump’s announcement of the initiative at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

CNN’s Kaitlan Collins questioned the logic of including Putin, citing Trump’s previous warnings that Russia could seek to expand its influence in the Arctic, including Greenland. Collins pressed the president on why he would extend an invitation to a leader he has publicly described as a potential strategic threat.

Trump responded bluntly, making clear that the board was not designed for ideological purity or public approval. “I have some controversial people on it, but these are people who get the job done,” Trump said. He added that filling the board with agreeable or untested figures would undermine its purpose, remarking that “if I put all babies on the board, it wouldn’t be very much.” Trump confirmed that Putin had been invited and had accepted the role.

The “Board of Peace,” unveiled at Davos, is intended to bring together influential global leaders to resolve major international conflicts, including ongoing crises in Gaza and other flashpoints. The initiative reflects Trump’s long-standing belief that durable peace requires engagement with powerful actors, even those viewed unfavorably by Western political and media establishments.

Supporters of the president argue that the approach reflects pragmatic statecraft, noting that history’s most consequential diplomatic breakthroughs often involved adversaries rather than allies. They contend that excluding major geopolitical players like Russia would render any serious peace effort ineffective, particularly in conflicts where Moscow holds significant leverage.

Critics, however, have framed the decision as contradictory, arguing that Trump’s warnings about Russian ambitions clash with his willingness to involve Putin in a peace-focused body. Administration allies counter that acknowledging strategic rivalry does not preclude dialogue, and that diplomacy aimed at reducing conflict inherently requires engagement with all sides capable of escalating or resolving tensions.

The exchange underscores a broader philosophical divide over U.S. foreign policy, with Trump continuing to champion deal-making and direct engagement as tools for stability. By standing by his invitation to Putin, the president signaled once again that his approach prioritizes outcomes over optics, even when it invites controversy.