Should Donald Trump receive the Nobel Peace Prize?

By Elizabeth Dangerfield   

Swedish industrialist, inventor and armaments manufacturer, Alfred Nobel, was a remarkable man. Upon his death, he donated his fortune to a foundation to fund the Nobel Prizes, which annually recognise those who conferred the greatest benefit to humankind. Arguably the Nobel Peace Prize is the most prestigious prize offered in the world. The criteria set out in Nobel’s will are simple. It is awarded to those who have done the most or the best work for:

• fraternity between nations,
• the abolition or reduction of standing armies,
• the holding and promotion of peace congresses

American Presidents and one Vice President have received the Nobel Peace Prize:

• President Woodrow Wilson in 1920, for his efforts in ending the First World War and help in creating the League of Nations.
• President Jimmy Carter in 2002, for his efforts in finding “peaceful solutions to international conflicts, advancing democracy and human rights, and promoting economic and social development.”
• Vice President Al Gore in 2007, for his efforts to obtain and spread knowledge about climate change.
• President Barack Obama in 2009, for his efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation.

When President Obama accepted the prestigious award in 2009, he said:

I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who’ve received this prize: Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela; my accomplishments are slight.

President Obama donated a large sum of the money awarded to him with the Nobel Peace Prize. 

The last two recipients have irked Donald who believes he has done more than enough to be worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. By getting it he would have the recognition he seems to crave. Apart from making money, exerting power, ignoring or contradicting scientific and historical facts, what Donald wants most is homage.

He would have us believe that his interference in the affairs of other nations is a Herculean attempt to make the world a better more peaceful, place. The problem is that Donald is known to exaggerate his achievements; not get the facts right at times, tell the occasional untruth, or even mislead people. In his address to the United Nations General Assembly on 23 September 2025 he said:

Six years have passed since I last stood in this grand hall and addressed a world that was prosperous and at peace in my first term. Since that day, the guns of war have shattered the peace I forged on two continents.

Here Donald seeks to win homage for his action in achieving world peace in his first term in office by implying that he achieved world peace all on his own. If this were true no doubt world leaders would be prepared to prostrate themselves before him. However, it overlooks the fact that there was a war between Russia and Ukraine, a terrible civil war in Syria, terrible conflicts in Afghanistan, Iran, and Ethiopia, not to mention that many nations were distractedcoping with the COVID pandemic. Also, at one stage many of us were petrified that Donald’s actions and words would start a nuclear war with North Korea.

And of course, his way of going about his business as the greatest leader in the world is not always in accord with the values of most other countries as expressed through the United Nation charters (especially the bits about national autonomy, human rights and basic freedoms). Often the very people most affected by the negotiations are excluded from the deal-making process and it becomes a case of the fox being in charge of the hen house suchas when discussions were held on Ukraine between Trump and Putin without Zelenskyy and often there is some benefit to the United States included as a bargaining chip.

Sometimes, his art of diplomacy seems more like bullying, but maybe he believes that as the most powerful person in the world he is entitled to make up the rules of engagement. He certainly sees other countries as vassal states which he can insult, order about and threaten with economic penalties. In his speech to the United Nations General Assembly he said that:

… in a period of just seven months, I have ended seven unendable wars. They said they were unendable. You’re never going to get them solved. Some were going for 31 years, two of them, 31, you think of it, 31 years. One was 36 years; one was 28 years. I ended seven wars. And in all cases, they were raging with countless thousands of people being killed. This includes Cambodia and Thailand, Kosovo and Serbia, the Congo and Rwanda, a vicious, violent war that was. Pakistan and India, Israel and Iran, Egypt and Ethiopia, and Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Donald’s peace-making initiatives have had mixed results, and have not resolved the issues underlying the conflicts. While the efforts of Donald did have some effect in the Thai–Cambodia conflict, the conflict is still not resolved. In the Serbia and Kosovo conflict there is no indication that Donald’s intervention produced significant results, and many issues are still unresolved. The conflicts between the Democratic Republic of Conga and Rwanda have not been resolved although they did go along with Donald’s suggestions. India and Pakistan seemed to have come to an agreement on their brief conflict by themselves.

With the Israel-Iran conflict, Israel started the conflict, Donald has strongly supported Israel, but eventually moved to end the conflict by calling for Iran’s unconditional surrender on social media and suggesting that he would not order the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei at this point in time even though he knew where he was located. Thus asserting once again his god-given right to determine the destiny of other countries. It is also hard to see how Donald ended the war between Egypt and Ethiopia when there wasn’t one.

At one stage Donald was very confident that he could end the war between Russia and Ukraine. Indeed before he was elected he said he could end it within 24 hours with a very simple negotiation. He has not succeeded. He tried to make Zelenskyy the scapegoat for his failure. Humiliating him on a visit to the White House in February, stating that Zelenskyy is serving as a dictator without elections on social media, and later that Zelenskyy’s hatred of Putin was a roadblock to peace.

Brokering peace deals can be an opportunity to get a good outcome for the United States and the President. In February Donald was negotiating a minerals deal with Ukraine that would help stop the war. Ukraine. According to an AP article by Meg Kinnard in March Trump suggested that:

Zelenskyy should consider giving the U.S. ownership of Ukraine’s power plants to ensure their long-term security. Trump told Zelenskyy that the U.S could be “very helpful in running those plants with its electricity and utility expertise.”

Donald then tried to pressure Zelenskyy to agree to a peace deal by pausing military aid to the country. It was expected that Ukraine would give up large proportions of its territory. It is hard to see any concern for Ukraine being the aggrieved party in this conflict and for the implications for the rest of Europe if Putin is successful in destroying Ukraine. It seems to be a case of Russia and the United States brokering a deal at all costs to secure peace in Ukraine. And the winner of such a deal was Russia. Putin did not seem to get the tweet that Donald was the greatest negotiator of all times.

Given Donald’s penchant for claiming bragging rights for ending wars no doubt he will be taking credit for ending the war in Gaza. However, his proposal for Gaza in February 2025 should be remembered mainly because it indicates the way he determines what is a good outcome in negotiations.

In early February 2025, when there was a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, Donald proposed that the United States would just walk into Gaza, take over the administration of the area, and remove the Palestinian inhabitants and over 50 million tonnes of debris and unexploded ordnance. After the rubbish was gone he would re-develop the territory into the Riviera of the Middle East.

It seemed incidental to this grand vision that would be of great benefit to America, that it would be illegal, that 2 million Palestinians would lose their land, their homes and their livelihoods; that neighbouring countries might not like having colonies of Palestinians living in their lands, especially as a number of them had already accepted large numbers of refugees from Israel. It took no notice of the history of the Middle East; the justifiable grievances of the Palestinians; and the complete obliteration of their identity. This in a nutshell may point to the reason Donald may not end up with a Nobel peace prize. His approach just lacks a bit of a moral compass.

The idea was dropped due to lack of support from neighbouring countries but it had strong support from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu who seems to have revived the ideaafter an overwhelming onslaught on the Gaza Strip.

Since the war began October 7, 2023, until October 2, 2025, 66,225 Palestinians (mostly women and children) have been killed plus thousands more still buried under rubble and 169,165 injured. 440 people have starved to death including 147 children. Not only has genocide been committed but also war crimes such as firing on hungry and thirsty Palestinians as they seek food and water at aid distribution centres and killing of aid workers, observers, journalists, doctors and nurses and the destruction of hospitals.

This whole process has been carried out without mercy and in contradiction of international law. Donald has staunchly supported the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu since he came into office, and has supported his actions in Gaza. The United States has supplied weapons for use in Gaza thus becoming complicit in the genocide that has taken place there.

No doubt Donald will be taking credit for ending the war in Gaza with his 20-point peace plan constructed without any input from the Palestinians in Gaza or their Hamasrepresentatives. It gives Netanyahu everything he wants – the disarming of Hamas, the surrendering of Palestinian territory, and indefinite occupation of Palestinian territory. Again, one must ask who loses in the peace deals proposed by Donald and who gains?

The desire for homage reflects ego and its accompanying narcissism. A recent Guardian article describes how Netanyahu cleverly manipulated Donald to achieve intervention from the United States that benefited Israel.

… Netanyahu stroked Trump’s ego by revealing that he had nominated the US president for the Nobel peace prize. Netanyahu managed to both flatter Trump and tap into his sense of grievance over being denied the world’s top peacemaking award.

It is not certain what weight will be given to being nominated for a peace prize by man accused of genocide.

Donald went on to say in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly:

It’s empty words and empty words don’t solve war. The only thing that solves war and wars is action. Now, after ending all of these wars and also earlier negotiating the Abraham Accords, which is a very big thing for which our country received no credit, never receives credit. Everyone says that I should get the Nobel Peace Prize for each one of these achievements, but for me, the real prize will be the sons and daughters who live to grow up with the mothers and fathers because millions of people are no longer being killed in endless and un-glorious wars. What I care about is not winning prizes. It’s saving lives. We saved millions and millions of lives with the seven wars, and we have others that we’re working on and you know that.

Needless to say, Donald’s agreements with other countries have not saved millions of lives but they may have cost thousands. The Abraham Accords were about the normalisation of relationships between Israel and four Arab countries. They had little to do with peace and more to do with trade and were carried out at the top level. They did not bring peace to the Middle East, and they did not prevent Israeli continuing its expansion into Palestine territories. They did not take account of the views of ordinary people in those Arab countries who are opposed to the way Israel has treated the Palestinians.

In fact the views of outsiders of the United States have become more negative. When asked about Trump’s personal characteristics, most describe him as arrogant and dangerous, while relatively few see him as honest. While people in some countries see Donald as a strong leader, leaders of other countries may be nice to Donald to his face in order to achieve a better deal while rueing that they have to pay homage to him at all.

Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN

Dear Reader,

Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.

Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.

Join our community of truth-seekers. Donate via PayPal or credit card via the button below, or bank transfer [BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969] and help us keep shining a light.

With gratitude,

The AIMN Team