Donald Trump’s Nobel Peace Prize nomination presents the awarding committee with a stark choice: should it reward a tangible diplomatic deal, the Abraham Accords, or uphold its long-standing ideal of promoting global cooperation and fraternity? Experts overwhelmingly believe the committee will choose the latter, making a Trump victory highly improbable.
The case for Trump is built upon the 2020 normalization agreements between Israel and several of its Arab neighbors. This was a significant shift in regional dynamics, and his supporters, including U.S. Rep. Claudia Tenney who nominated him, argue it is a feat of peacemaking worthy of the Nobel. This perspective prioritizes concrete results over diplomatic process or political style.
On the other side of the ledger is Trump’s entire presidential record, which consistently demonstrated a disregard for the ideals the Nobel Prize was founded on. His administration withdrew from crucial international agreements on climate and security, expressed open hostility toward multilateral organizations like the UN, and often strained relationships with key allies. This runs counter to the spirit of “fraternity between nations” mentioned in Alfred Nobel’s will.
Theo Zenou, a historian and research fellow, highlighted this conflict. He noted that previous winners have been “bridge-builders,” a term not often associated with Trump’s divisive political style. Moreover, Zenou pointed to Trump’s denial of climate change as a major hurdle, as the committee increasingly sees environmental stability as a cornerstone of long-term peace.
In essence, the committee must decide if the ends (the Abraham Accords) justify the means (a diplomatic approach that often undermined global cooperation). Given the Nobel’s history of rewarding process, collaboration, and a commitment to a peaceful world order, the consensus is that Trump’s singular achievement will not be enough to overcome a record that challenged the very foundations of that order.