The campaign for Donald Trump to win the Nobel Peace Prize is a classic battle of perception versus principle. The perception, fueled by Trump himself, is that of a master dealmaker who brought historic peace to the Middle East. The principle, held by the Nobel committee, is that the prize honors a deeper, more consistent commitment to global cooperation, a standard Trump fails to meet.
The perception is powerful. The Abraham Accords were a tangible, headline-grabbing achievement. By repeatedly highlighting this success and framing himself as a Nobel-worthy peacemaker, Trump has created a compelling narrative for the public and his supporters. This narrative is amplified by bookmakers who list him as a favorite, adding to the sense of momentum.
However, the Nobel committee operates on a set of well-established principles. They value multilateralism, respect for international law, and sustained efforts to resolve the root causes of conflict. It is here that Trump’s candidacy unravels. His administration’s record of withdrawing from international agreements and his open hostility to global institutions clash directly with these core principles.
Experts like Theo Zenou and Nina Græger emphasize this gap. Zenou points to Trump’s climate change denial as a violation of the principle of shared responsibility for the planet’s future. Græger notes that his divisive rhetoric violates the principle of promoting a peaceful perspective. These are not minor infractions; they are fundamental departures from the Nobel’s guiding philosophy.
In this contest between a skillfully crafted public perception and the deeply ingrained principles of the Nobel institution, the principles are almost certain to prevail. The committee is not a court of public opinion. It is a guardian of a specific legacy, and all signs indicate that Trump’s record does not align with the values it is sworn to uphold.