Hear Me Out—Trump Deserves the Nobel Peace Prize
It may be strange to think of Trump as an international peacemaker, but you can’t deny the results
Back in 2018, two Norwegian lawmakers nominated Donald Trump for the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize. Needless to say, it was played for laughs. But then the nominations kept rolling in.
His lowering of tensions with North Korea earned Trump his first and second nominations, while the 2020 Abraham Accords earned him two more. Another in 2021, two in 2024 and this year, they’re simply flooding in. It’s high time Oslo—and the D.C. hecklers—take the idea more seriously.
Maybe the June Iran-Israel ceasefire will stick; maybe it won’t. Things will be clearer in October when this year’s Nobel Prizes are announced. While Trump’s leadership style and policies have divided international opinion, his advancement of global peace through bold diplomacy, economic leverage and strategic restraint builds a strong case. He certainly has a more compelling argument than anyone else stumbling across the world stage.
The historical precedent for a Trump Nobel Peace Prize is well established. Americans have garnered far more Peace Prizes than any other nationality, with four presidents taking the honor. Barack Obama won despite accomplishing nothing in particular; he’d only been president for a little over eight months at the time.
The current president’s unconventional approach to international relations makes D.C. ridicule the idea of Trump as peacemaker, but it’s hard to argue with the results. By choosing pragmatic deal-making over ideological posturing, he’s broken decades of stagnation on several fronts.
In 2018, Trump became the first sitting U.S. president to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. The summits yielded limited long-term results but undeniably reduced the immediate threat of nuclear brinksmanship. The nuclear-grade rhetoric of 2017 gave way to dialogue, significantly reducing North Korea’s missile tests during Trump’s first term.
While it’s easy for critics to boil down the current U.S.-North Korea relationship as one between a “dotard” and a “little rocket man,” it’s resulted in a good deal more than a few laugh lines. American willingness to engage directly with a pariah state, despite domestic and international skepticism, showed courage and resulted in de-escalation over confrontation. And the Trump administration’s general commitment to avoiding military entanglements proved a key factor in maintaining global peace.
Perhaps Trump’s most significant achievement was the Abraham Accords, signed in 2020. For decades, the Israeli-Arab conflict seemed intractable. Again, he bypassed conventional wisdom, leveraging economic incentives and mutual security concerns to forge alliances that reshaped the Middle East. Instead of endless Camp David summits and binding resolutions, the agreements normalized relations between Israel and multiple Arab states, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco.
The accords not only reduced tensions but opened avenues for trade, tourism and cultural exchange, fostering stability in the volatile region. This alone was a monumental step toward peace and is worthy of recognition. Following Israel’s decimation of Iran and her proxies, Trump is inviting Syria and Lebanon into the Abrahamic fold, along with other Gulf states once cowed into submission by Tehran.
Trump’s long-time approach to Iran prioritized economic pressure through sanctions over military intervention. Instead of invasion, he pinpointed limited attacks including killing Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani and the bunker-buster strikes on the Fordow uranium enrichment facility. These were backed by his administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran, which aimed to change behavior without resorting to further violence.
Economic tools promote peace more than military intervention, especially when a years-long occupation would be required. Sanctions hurt adversaries without firing a shot, a strategy as effective as it is nonviolent. To this end, Trump has worked to strengthen the U.S. economy through tax cuts, deregulation and energy independence, giving him additional leverage in international negotiations. His focus on economic strength as a foundation for diplomacy creates ripple effects, encouraging other nations to prioritize trade and cooperation over conflict.
His vocal support for religious freedom also aligns with the Nobel’s values. Trump’s executive orders and international initiatives, like the 2019 Global Call to Protect Religious Freedom, championed persecuted minorities worldwide. From Christians in the Middle East to Uyghurs in China, his administration drew attention to human rights abuses that destabilize societies. By linking religious freedom to global security, Trump addressed a critical but often overlooked aspect of peacebuilding.
Skeptics will argue that Trump’s divisive rhetoric and unconventional style disqualify him from consideration. They point to his withdrawal from multilateral agreements like the Paris Climate Accords or his criticism of NATO allies. But these moves proved strategic and effective, recalibrating relationships to better serve American interests and, by extension, global stability. Trump’s pressure on NATO, for instance, led to increased defense contributions from member states, strengthening the alliance. His skepticism of international institutions reflects a belief that peace is best achieved through strong, sovereign nations working together, not supranational bureaucracies.
Besides, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to figures like Yasser Arafat and Henry Kissinger, whose legacies are far more contentious. If the prize is not about perfection but contributions to peace, Trump’s record certainly stands up to scrutiny.
As of 2025, the world remains fraught with challenges, from Ukraine to the South China Sea. Yet Trump’s leadership has consistently prioritized outcomes over optics. And his second term builds on his first.
Despite the arguments in his favor, Trump strongly doubts Oslo will recognize his achievements. As he recently posted on Truth Social, “I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the War between India and Pakistan, I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the War between Serbia and Kosovo, I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize for keeping Peace between Egypt and Ethiopia (A massive Ethiopian built dam, stupidly financed by the United States of America, substantially reduces the water flowing into The Nile River).”
Perhaps he’s right. But in a world weary of endless wars and diplomatic gridlock, President Trump has shown that peace is possible through strength, directness and a relentless focus on results. Oslo and the international foreign policy elite should at least ask themselves how this brash president has succeeded where they have continuously failed.
 | A guest post by
|