Donald Trump, one of the most controversial politicians of our time, has repeatedly claimed the role of a peacemaker. Despite this, the Nobel Peace Prize has eluded him.

In the world of high-stakes politics, where image and recognition are often equated with influence, the Nobel Peace Prize remains the most coveted trophy. Its winners forever inscribe their names in history as architects of peace and reconciliation. Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States, whose tenure was one of the most vivid and polarizing in modern history, repeatedly expressed his ambitions for this laurel.

He didn’t just want the prize; he seemingly believed it was a deserved reward for his foreign policy, which he portrayed as groundbreaking and disruptive to established dogmas. However, despite several formal nominations and vigorous self-promotion, the gold medal with the profile of Alfred Nobel never adorned his office. Why did the Nobel Committee, which has often selected controversial figures, pass over one of the most prominent world leaders of the early 21st century? The answer lies in a complex web of unfulfilled promises, contradictory rhetoric, and a fundamental disconnect between Trump’s methods and the principles the prize is supposed to embody.

The Formal Pretexts and the Peacemaker Narrative

For Trump’s supporters, the arguments for his candidacy seemed substantial and visible. It would be incorrect to claim that his nominations were entirely baseless. Two key achievements of his administration formed the backbone of the “Trump the Peacemaker” narrative.

The first and most spectacular was the diplomatic breakthrough on the Korean Peninsula. In 2018, the world watched with bated breath as the sitting U.S. President and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un shook hands at a historic summit in Singapore. It was a moment of incredible symbolic power. After decades of hostility, threats, and “fire and fury,” the mere fact of the meeting seemed miraculous.

Trump masterfully leveraged this moment, speaking of the “chemistry” between him and Kim, discussing the potential for a brilliant future for the hermetic country, and, crucially, promising the complete denuclearization of the peninsula. This was a goal that had eluded his predecessors for decades, and Trump positioned himself as the only leader with the courage and deal-making prowess to achieve it.

The second trump card was the Abraham Accords, finalized in 2020. Through the active mediation of the Trump administration, Israel signed agreements to normalize relations with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and later with Sudan and Morocco. This was an undeniable diplomatic triumph that redrew the political map of the Middle East. Decades of formal non-recognition of Israel by the Arab world were shaken. For the Nobel Committee, which has in the past awarded peace treaties in the Middle East (as with Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin in 1978), this achievement looked like a serious bid.

However, the Nobel Peace Prize is not a lottery where a ticket in the form of a flashy summit is enough. It is a carefully weighed decision that considers not only the initiative itself but also its context, long-term consequences, and, importantly, the overall profile of the candidate as a global actor.

The Gap Between Process and Result: Short-Term Success vs. Sustainable Peace

A key reason for the Nobel Committee’s skepticism was the radical divergence between stated goals and achieved results. The prize is traditionally awarded for concrete, verifiable achievements, not just for opening a dialogue.

In the case of North Korea, the brilliant Singapore summit remained, for the most part, a television spectacle. The beautiful footage and grand declarations were not followed by real progress on disarmament. On the contrary, according to international observers and intelligence agencies, North Korea not only failed to halt its nuclear program but continued to expand and refine its arsenal.

Subsequent meetings and the exchange of “love letters” between Trump and Kim failed to break the deadlock. The negotiations stalled, and the situation de facto returned to the previous state of sanctions and tension. The Nobel Committee could not, in good conscience, award a prize for a process that led neither to peace nor to disarmament - the two pillars upon which the award stands. It would have been tantamount to rewarding the start, not the finish.

The Abraham Accords, for all their significance, were also not without flaws from the perspective of the “Nobel” ideal. While they strengthened ties between Israel and several Arab states, they consciously sidestepped the root of the regional conflict - the Palestinian issue. Moreover, some analysts noted that these deals effectively marginalized the Palestinians, creating a new coalition where their aspirations were pushed to the sidelines. Sustainable peace in the Middle East is impossible without resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and by awarding Trump for agreements that critics argued could exacerbate this issue, the Committee risked stepping into an ideological trap.

The so-called “peace deals” of the Trump administration did not, in essence, bring peace to the Middle East closer; instead, they deepened the chasm of mistrust and cemented the status quo of occupation. The unilateral approach, where Washington negotiated almost exclusively with the Israeli side and ignored legitimate Palestinian authorities, led to a catastrophic marginalization of the Palestinian Authority.

The recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital and the legitimization of Israeli settlements in the West Bank not only violated key principles of international law but also poisoned the ground for any future negotiations. Instead of fostering dialogue, these actions were perceived by Palestinians and much of the international community as an act of poorly disguised bias, giving Israel a carte blanche for further annexation, thereby planting a time bomb under any possibility for a stable settlement.

Furthermore, the irony lies in presenting such agreements as “peaceful” while, in reality, they merely freeze the conflict temporarily without addressing its root causes. The Nobel Committee’s refusal to award the peace prize to Trump in this context is a telling acknowledgment of this fact. Genuine peace requires not just a temporary ceasefire achieved through concessions to one side, but the complex work of addressing core issues - the rights of Palestinian refugees, the status of Jerusalem, the creation of a viable Palestinian state.

Trump’s approach, in contrast, systematically destroyed the very possibility of such a settlement, creating only a fragile and short-lived lull that is regularly shattered by new waves of violence, as we continue to witness today. Thus, his legacy in this conflict is not peace, but deepened polarization and an undermined foundation for future dialogue.

The Language of Division in an Era That Calls for “Fraternity Between Nations”

Alfred Nobel’s will clearly defines the prize’s purpose: to champion those who have conferred the greatest benefit to “fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding of peace congresses.” Here we arrive at perhaps the central contradiction of Trump’s candidacy. His rhetoric and governing style, both internationally and domestically, were often the direct opposite of the idea of “fraternity.”

On the global stage, his remarks were marked by bluntness and confrontational tone. He could call Kim Jong-un “little rocket man” and then negotiate with him; publicly insult leaders of NATO ally nations, questioning the very purpose of the alliance; and wage trade wars simultaneously with China and the European Union, creating global economic instability. This approach, which his supporters called “unpredictable diplomacy,” looked from the outside like an undermining of decades of multilateral cooperation.

But what may have mattered even more was his domestic conduct. Trump wasn’t just a polarizing figure; he was a leader who often appealed to the darkest instincts, deepening the fissures in American society. His statements on race, immigration, and social issues divided the nation, sparking waves of protests and counter-protests. The Nobel Committee, based in Norway - a country with strong traditions of social consensus and liberal internationalism - was unlikely to view a figure associated with internal strife as a worthy symbol of global peace. The prize is not only about foreign policy; it is also about moral authority.

The Contradictory Ecosystem of Foreign Policy: Peace with One Hand, War with the Other

Trump’s peace initiatives did not exist in a vacuum. They were set against the broader context of his foreign policy, which from the perspective of traditional diplomacy appeared deeply contradictory. While he was negotiating with Kim Jong-un, his administration was unilaterally withdrawing from key international agreements that were themselves seen as instruments for maintaining peace.

The withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord was perceived by the global community as a blow to collective efforts to solve a global problem that is a potential source of future conflicts. The scrapping of the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) and the subsequent imposition of harsh sanctions not only buried years of painstaking diplomatic work but also sharply destabilized the situation in the Persian Gulf, bringing the region to the brink of open military conflict.

The apex of this confrontational line was the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in January 2020. A targeted drone strike on the territory of sovereign Iraq, killing a high-ranking foreign official, was deemed by many legal experts and political scientists as an act of aggression without legal justification. This move instantly escalated tensions to an unprecedented level and demonstrated the Trump administration’s willingness to use extreme military force while bypassing multilateral institutions. How could one seriously consider the candidacy of a man who, with one gesture, launches a peace process, and with another, almost ignites a full-scale war?

The Political Context and Reputational Risk for the Committee

The subjective factor cannot be ignored. The Nobel Committee, comprising five members appointed by the Norwegian parliament, is inevitably a product of its political and cultural environment. Norway is a country with established liberal-democratic values, a deep faith in multilateral diplomacy, and international law.

The candidacy of Donald Trump, with his transatlantic skepticism, disdain for international organizations, and provocative rhetoric, was deeply alien to the Norwegian establishment. Awarding him the prize would not have been merely a controversial decision; it would have been perceived by a significant part of the world community as a legitimization of his most confrontational methods. This could have inflicted irreparable damage on the prize’s reputation, turning it from a symbol of humanistic ideals into a tool for political manipulation. The Committee, mindful of the scandals surrounding some past decisions, was unlikely to want to take such a risk, especially in the absence of guaranteed, indisputable peace achievements.

A Legacy That Doesn’t Fit on a Medallion

In the final analysis, the story of the Nobel Peace Prize and Donald Trump is a tale of the disconnect between form and substance, between symbolic gesture and substantive change. He undoubtedly understood the power of symbols and attempted to use diplomacy as a theatre where he played the lead role of a revolutionary peacemaker. He created all the formal pretexts for it: nominations, summits, agreements.

However, the Nobel Peace Prize, for all its alleged politicization, remains an award that strives (albeit not always successfully) to represent something greater than a clever political stunt. It demands sustainable results, moral consistency, and alignment with the spirit of “fraternity between nations.” The legacy of Donald Trump in international relations proved too fragmented, too contradictory, and too devoid of long-term positive effect. His peace-making initiatives were drowned in a sea of his own confrontational rhetoric, unilateral actions, and unpredictability. The Nobel Committee, weighing all the pros and cons, concluded that the aggregate contribution of the 47th US President to the cause of peace not only fell short of the high bar for a laureate but was fundamentally at odds with the very ideals this honour was created to promote.

Viktor Mikhin, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (RAEN), Middle East expert. Courtesy

https://journal-neo.su/2025/10/18/the-uncomfortable-peacemaker-why-donald-trump-never-became-a-nobel-laureate/