Donald Trump’s bid for the Nobel Peace Prize has created two starkly different narratives. In one, he is a bold peacemaker who shattered decades of diplomatic stalemate with the Abraham Accords. In the other, he is a divisive nationalist whose actions have weakened the international order. The Norwegian Nobel Committee’s decision will reveal which narrative it finds more compelling.
The case for Trump is straightforward and centers on the 2020 normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab countries. His nominator, Rep. Claudia Tenney, and his supporters argue that this was a historic achievement worthy of the prize. Trump himself has embraced this narrative, claiming to have ended multiple wars and positioned himself as a singular force for peace, even teasing a plan for the conflict in Gaza.
However, the counter-narrative, favored by Nobel experts, is that Trump’s presidency was fundamentally disruptive to global peace and cooperation. They point to his withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, the Paris climate accord, and his open hostility toward institutions like the UN and NATO. Theo Zenou, a historian, argues that the committee values “bridge-builders” who embody international cooperation, a description few would apply to Trump.
A key factor for the committee is the long-term impact of a laureate’s work. While the Abraham Accords were significant, some experts question their durability and whether they addressed the core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Nobel committee tends to favor sustained, multilateral efforts over rapid, personality-driven diplomatic wins, which may not stand the test of time.
This year, the committee faces a choice between rewarding a specific, tangible outcome and upholding its traditional focus on process, multilateralism, and long-term vision. Given Trump’s polarizing rhetoric and his dismissive stance on global issues like climate change, longtime Nobel watchers believe the committee will almost certainly favor the latter, leaving Trump’s bid as little more than a media spectacle.