The annual speculation over the Nobel Peace Prize has been given a dose of blockbuster drama by the recurring nomination of Donald Trump. While his name generates headlines and excites bookmakers, longtime Nobel watchers say that behind the scenes in Oslo, his candidacy likely lacks the substance the committee seeks.
Trump’s presence in the nominee pool is largely due to his role in brokering the Abraham Accords in 2020. This diplomatic effort, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states, led to a formal nomination from Rep. Claudia Tenney. Trump himself has fueled the speculation, publicly declaring that he should win and criticizing the institution for overlooking him.
Despite the public attention, experts in the field maintain that his prospects are slim. The Norwegian Nobel Committee has a well-established preference for laureates who champion multilateralism, human rights, and long-term, patient peace processes. Trump’s “America First” presidency, characterized by a withdrawal from international commitments and a transactional approach to diplomacy, is viewed as antithetical to these values.
Nina Græger, director of the Peace Research Institute Oslo, describes his chances as “a long shot,” noting that “his rhetoric does not point in a peaceful perspective.” This sentiment is echoed by historian Theo Zenou, who points to Trump’s climate change denial and his failure to address the “root causes” of conflicts as major red flags for a committee focused on sustainable peace.
The 2009 decision to award the prize to Barack Obama, which drew widespread criticism for being premature, may also make the committee more cautious. Awarding the prize to an even more polarizing American political figure would likely ignite a firestorm of controversy. Thus, while Trump provides a compelling storyline for the media, the expert consensus is that the committee will opt for a more traditional candidate who embodies the spirit of international cooperation.
