Donald Trump’s ‘peace’ pitch and the Nobel Prize paradox

The Nobel Peace Prize, which is set to be announced on Friday, is one of the most prestigious honours, awarded to those who have made significant contributions to advancing peace and resolving conflicts. Over the years, it has recognised quiet diplomacy, long-term efforts, and lasting impacts on global harmony. Against this backdrop, US President Donald Trump has consistently positioned himself as a contender for the award, often highlighting his role in resolving multiple conflicts. despite widespread scepticism from experts and observers.

He has been nominated several times by people within the US as well as politicians abroad since 2018. His name also was put forth in December by US Representative Claudia Tenney, her office said in a statement, for his brokering of the Abraham Accords, which normalised relations between Israel and several Arab states in 2020.

Long-time Nobel watchers say Trump’s prospects remain remote despite a flurry of high-profile nominations and some notable foreign policy interventions for which he has taken personal credit.

Trump’s boasts and previous high-profile nominations make him the blockbuster name on the list of bookmakers’ favourites. But it’s unclear whether his name comes up in conversation when the five-member Nobel committee, appointed by Norway’s parliament, meets behind closed doors.

A person cannot nominate themselves.

Experts say the Norwegian Nobel Committee typically focuses on the durability of peace, the promotion of international fraternity and the quiet work of institutions that strengthen those goals.

Trump’s own record might even work against him, they said, citing his apparent disdain for multilateral institutions and his disregard for global climate change concerns.

Still, the US leader has repeatedly sought the Nobel spotlight since his first term, most recently telling United Nations delegates late last month “everyone says that I should get the Nobel Peace Prize.”

“It’s completely unthinkable,” Oeivind Stenersen, a historian who has conducted research and co-written a book on the prize, told news agency AFP, on Trump “deserving” the prize.

Trump “is in many ways the opposite of the ideals that the Nobel Prize represents”, he said.

“The Nobel Peace Prize is about defending multilateral cooperation, for example in the UN… and Trump breaks with that principle, he follows his own path, unilaterally,” he added.

“The Nobel Committee should assess whether there have been clear examples of success in that peacemaking effort,” the head of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Karim Haggag, said.

Tens of thousands of people are eligible to submit a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize. This year, 338 individuals and organisations are known to have been nominated but their names are kept secret for 50 years.

Forgotten actors of forgotten conflicts

Haggag said the prize ought to go to actors working quietly behind the scenes. The Nobel Committee should shine a light on “the work done by local mediators and local peace builders on the ground”, he said.

“These are actors who have been forgotten in many of the world’s forgotten conflicts,” he said, citing Sudan, the Sahel and countries in the Horn of Africa — Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea.

Sudan’s Emergency Response Rooms — networks of volunteers risking their lives to feed and help people enduring war and famine — are one such group, he noted.

Media watchdogs such as the Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Without Borders could also be honoured after a deadly year for reporters, especially in Gaza.

“Never before have so many journalists been killed in a single year,” Nina Grager, the head of the Peace Research Institute of Oslo, said. Yulia Navalnaya, the widow of Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny, is meanwhile among bookies’ favourites.

Last year, the Nobel Peace Prize went to Japan’s atomic bomb survivors’ group Nihon Hidankyo for its efforts to ban nuclear weapons.

The Nobel committee was met with fierce criticism in 2009 for giving then-US President Barack Obama the prize barely nine months into his first term. Many argued Obama had not been in office long enough to have an impact worthy of the Nobel.

And Trump’s own outspokenness about possibly winning the award might work against him: The committee won’t want to be seen as caving in to political pressure, said Nina Graeger, director of the Peace Research Institute Oslo. Trump’s prospects for the prize this year are “a long shot,” she said. “His rhetoric does not point in a peaceful perspective.”

The Nobel announcements begin Monday with the medicine prize. They continue with the physics prize on Tuesday, chemistry on Wednesday and literature on Thursday. The Nobel Peace Prize will be announced Friday and the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences on October 13.

Assault on science

Since taking office in January, the US president has cut billions of dollars in funding, attacked universities’ academic freedoms and overseen mass layoffs of scientists across federal agencies.

The prizes will be announced in Stockholm and Oslo, and chances are high that researchers working in the United States will take home some of the prestigious awards.

The United States is home to more Nobel science laureates than any other country, due largely to its longstanding investment in basic science and academic freedoms.

But that could change, said Hans Ellegren, secretary general of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which awards the Nobel prizes in physics, chemistry, and economics.

“In the post-war period, the US has taken over Germany’s role as the world’s leading scientific nation. When they now start cutting research funding, it threatens the country’s position,” he told news agency AFP.

Nominations made this year from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Pakistan’s government occurred after the February 1 deadline for the 2025 award. Trump has said repeatedly that he “deserves” the prize and claims to have “ended seven wars.” On Tuesday, he teased the possibility of ending an eighth war if Israel and Hamas agree to his peace plan aimed at concluding the nearly two-year war in Gaza.

“Nobody’s ever done that,” he told a gathering of military leaders at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia. “Will you get the Nobel Prize? Absolutely not. They’ll give it to some guy that didn’t do a damn thing.” Trump said it would be an “insult” to the United States if he did not win the prize. Since January, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have terminated 2,100 research grants totalling around $9.5 billion and $2.6 billion in contracts, according to an independent database called Grant Watch.

Affected projects include studies on gender, the health effects of global warming, Alzheimer’s disease and cancer.

Efforts are under way to restore some of the funding but uncertainty looms.

Nobel veterans said the committee prioritises sustained, multilateral efforts over quick diplomatic wins. Theo Zenou, a historian and research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, said Trump’s efforts have not yet been proven to be long-lasting.

“There’s a huge difference between getting fighting to stop in the short-term and resolving the root causes of the conflict,” Zenou said. Other fields in Trump’s line of fire include vaccines, climate change and diversity, equity and inclusion.

Zenou also highlighted Trump’s dismissive stance on climate change as out-of-step with what many, including the Nobel committee, see as the planet’s greatest long-term peace challenge.

“I don’t think they would award the most prestigious prize in the world to someone who does not believe in climate change,” Zenou said. “When you look at previous winners who have been bridge-builders, embodied international cooperation and reconciliation: These are not words we associate with Donald Trump.”

Thomas Perlmann, secretary general of the committee that awards the Nobel Prize for Medicine, said it was “no coincidence that the US has by far the most Nobel laureates”. “But there is now a creeping sense of uncertainty about the US’ willingness to maintain their leading position in research,” he said.

Perlmann called the United States “the very engine” of scientific research worldwide. “There would be very serious consequences for research globally if it starts to falter,” he added. “It doesn’t take very many years of large cutbacks to cause irreversible harm.”

China on the rise

Trump’s cuts could lead to a brain drain and ripple effects on research in other countries, Ellegren and Perlmann said.

Scientists and researchers who have already lost their jobs or funding may not return to their fields even if budgets are restored, and younger would-be scientists may decide not to pursue a career in research, they said. “There is a risk that a whole generation of young researchers will be lost,” Ellegren warned. While Trump’s policies primarily affect US research, international cooperation is already suffering as a result, he said.

Some countries have tried to attract US scientists, while non-American researchers may be tempted to leave the United States to pursue their work elsewhere.

A US retreat could therefore open the door for other nations to take big strides.

“The big global trend right now is that research in China is on the rise,” he said, adding: “They are investing unbelievable resources.”