The Nobel Peace Prize always garners significant attention. This year is no exception. Former U.S. President Donald Trump has portrayed himself as a key player in global peace efforts, pointing to his role in brokering agreements and suggesting he deserves the award. As head of the , an organization focused on peace research, I am frequently asked about the validity of these claims. I believe it’s improbable that the Norwegian Nobel Committee will grant him the prize this Friday.
This isn’t due to political prejudice. The Committee is an autonomous entity bound by , which mandates honoring those who further peace, disarmament, and global cooperation. Judged by these criteria, Trump’s actions present a mixed bag.
Regarding global cooperation, the Trump Administration adopted a largely isolationist stance. Earlier this year, Trump signed orders to withdraw the U.S. from the , the , and . These decisions signal a move away from international collaboration, contrasting with Alfred Nobel’s vision. His will emphasized promoting “fraternity between nations,” later interpreted as supporting global cooperation, especially through the U.N., whose agencies have received numerous over the years.
The Trump Administration also reduced U.S. foreign aid, weakening the U.S. Agency for International Development. Programs worth billions—from famine relief in Sudan to in sub-Saharan Africa—faced uncertainty. Research suggests this could lead to up to more deaths by 2030, including 4 million children under five. These actions also go against Alfred Nobel’s goal of promoting understanding and collaboration between nations.
Concerning disarmament, Trump’s approach differed from standard arms control efforts. For example, during his term, his administration withdrew from a Cold War-era nuclear arms treaty with Russia. Nobel’s idea of disarmament, however, highlights gradually decreasing weapons and fostering trust between countries.
Regarding peace, Trump took noticeable steps to back peace initiatives. Israel and Hamas have to the initial stage of his Gaza peace plan, which is a promising development. The includes a ceasefire, humanitarian aid, and the release of hostages and prisoners. However, it’s been criticized for excluding Palestinians from talks and not adequately addressing the conflict’s underlying issues. The lasting peace that Nobel sought to recognize is yet to be seen.
Domestically, Trump’s policies often stressed order and security, sometimes at the expense of inclusive dialogue with state and local governments. In , , , and , he to control unrest, and on pro-Palestinian protests at universities.
If the Nobel Committee seeks candidates who embody Nobel’s vision, it might consider others. As per our Institute’s tradition, I recently nominated , which highlights pressing threats to peace, central to our Institute’s research and purpose. These include Sudan’s , a community-based effort providing aid during conflict; the , which defends press freedom and reports on attacks on and in dangerous areas; and the , a long-standing movement promoting peace through disarmament advocacy and emphasizing women’s role in peace-building. Though their work may be understated, these candidates embody the sustained effort toward peace, disarmament, and global cooperation that Nobel intended to reward.
Unsurprisingly, there have been to promote Trump’s nomination, with backing from leaders like , , . However, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has strong institutional protections: its discussions , its mandate defined by Nobel’s will, and its members committed to upholding the Prize’s integrity. Outside pressure is unlikely to affect their decision, including this year’s.
The is one of five prizes awarded annually “to those who, during the preceding year, have conferred the greatest benefit to humankind,” according to Nobel’s will. The Peace Prize measures lasting contributions to peace, disarmament, and cooperation, not popularity, promise, or power.
To be sure, the Prize has been given to controversial figures before. In 1973, for his work negotiating the Vietnam War ceasefire. This led to two Nobel Committee members resigning in protest. When Barack Obama received the Prize in 2009, critics argued he hadn’t yet done enough to promote peace, being in office for less than a year. The Nobel secretary Geir Lundestad he regretted the Obama peace prize.
While Trump has made significant efforts in some areas, his overall record doesn’t yet fully meet Nobel’s standards. If his initiatives—like efforts to end the war in Gaza—achieve lasting success, the situation could look different next year.
“`
