Donald Trump’s nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize forces a fascinating question: what does “peace” mean in the 21st century, and how does the Nobel committee define it? While Trump’s supporters champion his transactional deal-making, his candidacy highlights a deep divide between his approach and the committee’s traditionally broader, more idealistic interpretation.
For Team Trump, peace is demonstrated by concrete deals like the Abraham Accords. The 2020 agreements, which established diplomatic ties between Israel and several Arab nations, are presented as a tangible outcome—a “win” in a region long plagued by conflict. This view defines peace as the cessation of hostilities and the signing of treaties, areas where Trump claims significant success.
However, Nobel experts argue the committee’s definition is far more expansive. For them, peace is not merely the absence of war but the presence of “international fraternity,” a commitment to multilateral cooperation, and respect for human rights and the environment. This is where Trump’s record falters. His administration was characterized by a retreat from global cooperation on issues ranging from climate change to nuclear non-proliferation.
Theo Zenou, a historian, points out that the committee values “bridge-builders” who foster reconciliation. He argues that this is not a description commonly associated with Trump. Moreover, Zenou emphasizes the importance of durability, questioning whether Trump’s diplomatic wins have addressed the “root causes of the conflict” or simply paused hostilities.
The Nobel committee’s past choices reflect this broader vision, often honoring activists, institutions, and leaders who work within the international system to solve long-term problems. Given this history, Trump’s disruptive, “America First” style of diplomacy represents a fundamental challenge to the prize’s ethos. The overwhelming expert consensus is that the committee will stick with its traditional definition of peace, leaving Trump on the outside looking in.
