Donald Trump’s repeated nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize have thrust his “America First” foreign policy into the Nobel spotlight. Yet, the very philosophy that defines his diplomatic approach is precisely why experts believe the Norwegian Nobel Committee will pass him over. The prize has traditionally honored global cooperation, an ideal often at odds with Trump’s worldview.
The centerpiece of Trump’s case is the 2020 Abraham Accords, which established diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab nations. This achievement, for which he was nominated by U.S. Rep. Claudia Tenney, is presented by his allies as a prime example of effective, transaction-based diplomacy. Trump argues he succeeded where others failed, positioning himself as a dealmaker who deserves the ultimate recognition.
However, the Nobel committee’s charter emphasizes the “promotion of international fraternity.” Nobel watchers contend that Trump’s tenure was characterized by the opposite: a deep skepticism of multilateral institutions, a withdrawal from key international agreements, and a preference for bilateral deals that often alienated traditional allies. This approach is seen as fundamentally contrary to the spirit of the award.
Historian Theo Zenou highlights another critical hurdle: climate change. The Nobel committee has increasingly recognized the link between environmental degradation and global conflict. Trump’s open denial of climate change and his withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement place him far outside the consensus of what constitutes a contribution to long-term peace. Zenou stated he doesn’t believe the committee would award the prize to someone with such a record.
Moreover, the committee is sensitive to its own reputation. After the controversy surrounding Barack Obama’s 2009 prize, which was seen by many as aspirational rather than earned, the committee is likely to be risk-averse. Awarding the prize to a figure as polarizing and openly disdainful of the international system as Trump would invite a level of criticism they are keen to avoid. His chances, therefore, remain a “long shot.”