By any reasonable historical measure, Donald Trump should be a front-runner for the Nobel Peace Prize.
In his first term, he brokered the Abraham Accords — a cascade of normalization agreements between Israel and multiple Arab nations that foreign policy elites had long claimed were impossible. In his second term, the pace has been even more remarkable: Armenia-Azerbaijan, Rwanda-DR Congo, Israel-Iran, Cambodia-Thailand, and India-Pakistan ceasefires or peace frameworks — some signed within months of his return to office, spanning three continents.
Trump has now received at least a dozen Nobel Peace Prize nominations in his lifetime, putting him squarely in the range of many past laureates. In another era, that record would have made his selection almost inevitable. Today, it almost guarantees he will be passed over.
Past Nobel Peace Prizes have gone to leaders who, like Trump, combined force of personality with results that altered the political map. Theodore Roosevelt was awarded the 1906 prize for mediating the Treaty of Portsmouth, ending the Russo-Japanese War. Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin shared the 1978 prize for the Camp David Accords — a peace between Egypt and Israel that has lasted to this day. Norman Borlaug’s agricultural revolution earned him the 1970 prize for feeding hundreds of millions.
By those standards, Trump’s record is not only competitive — it’s in some ways superior, with more deals concluded in less time and across a wider geographic range.
In the history of the Nobel Peace Prize, it’s unusual for a laureate to have more than one discrete peace agreement or ceasefire to their name at the time of the award.
Most political leaders honored by the Nobel — Roosevelt, Sadat and Begin, Juan Manuel Santos — received the award for one flagship settlement, even if they had worked on other conflicts. That’s what makes Trump’s 2025 record so unusual: five separate agreements or ceasefires in less than a year, spanning three continents.
This includes the highest number of peace agreements. NO ONE prior to Trump could boast more than three in a lifetime.
The Nobel Peace Prize was established to honor those who had “done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations.” That meant tangible achievements — peace agreements signed, humanitarian crises averted, lives saved.
In recent decades, however, the prize has drifted from a results-driven award to a stage for political signaling. Symbolic gestures, aspirational rhetoric, and alignment with the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s cultural politics have often outweighed measurable outcomes.
We can place awards on a spectrum:
Over time, the balance has shifted toward the second category.
Merit-Based:
Signal-Based:
Anwar Sadat’s Nobel Prize was awarded for the very peace treaty that led to his assassination in 1981. It’s a reminder that genuine peacemaking is often dangerous work. It requires taking political and personal risks that symbolic laureates never face.
Sadat’s courage — like Roosevelt’s hard-nosed diplomacy or Borlaug’s decades in the field — fits the original spirit of the prize: reward those who risk and endure to make peace real.
The modern Nobel Peace Prize is no longer neutral ground. The Norwegian Nobel Committee is appointed by Norway’s parliament, whose majority consistently leans toward European progressive politics. Within that worldview, Trump is not just controversial — he’s anathema.
Even with more substantive peace deals than some laureates have managed in a lifetime, his political identity, media portrayal, and unapologetic style work against him. In an era when the prize often rewards aspirational rhetoric, Trump is a man of action — and that’s precisely the problem.
This isn’t just about one man’s snub. Awards shape incentives. If we reward speeches over treaties, more speeches will be made and fewer treaties signed. In an unstable world, that’s a dangerous signal to send.
The Nobel Peace Prize was once a benchmark of tangible, completed peace work. If it becomes a platform for political statements alone, it risks losing credibility — and the power to inspire real change.
In a world where brokering peace can cost your life, it’s incredibly important that those outstanding individuals who are brave enough to do it be recognized. What kind of world are we building when they are not?
The Nobel Peace Prize should be restored to its original purpose: honoring those whose courage, skill, and persistence have actually reduced conflict in the world. That means recognizing achievement even when it comes from politically inconvenient figures.
Peace is not a performance. It’s a construction project. And we must reward the builders — even when the architects of fashion disapprove.
Do you enjoy PJ Media’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join PJ Media VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!