Is Donald Trump truly a peacemaker—or just a master showman? As the world awaits the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s decision on the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, one name dominates conversations: U.S. President Donald Trump. Love him or hate him, Trump has once again captured global attention. But can the man who claims to have “ended seven wars” genuinely claim the mantle of peacemaker, or is this another example of political theater on the world stage?
Trump, who returned to office earlier this year, has publicly insisted that his foreign policy record qualifies him for the world’s most prestigious peace honor. Speaking at the UN General Assembly in New York this September, he boldly declared: “Everyone says I should get the Nobel Peace Prize. I ended seven wars. No leader has ever done what I’ve done.”
Trump’s Claim to Peace
The U.S. president lists a series of conflicts he claims to have ended—from Cambodia and Thailand to India and Pakistan—though many of these assertions are disputed. His supporters see him as a tough negotiator who forces peace through dominance; his critics dismiss his claims as self-promotion woven with half-truths.
Earlier this week, Trump took credit for brokering what could be an eighth peace deal—this time between Israel and Hamas. The ceasefire agreement, rooted in his recently revealed 20-point peace plan, marks the first tangible step toward ending a devastating two-year war in Gaza. Even so, analysts remain cautious. As Nina Graeger of the Peace Research Institute Oslo explained, “While he deserves credit for pushing a Gaza ceasefire, it’s too soon to call it lasting peace.”
The Contested Record
Trump’s so-called peace credentials are anything but straightforward:
- Israel and Hamas: Trump’s 20-point plan has brought the war closer to ending than ever before. Yet, critics note that U.S. support, both militarily and diplomatically, played a major role in prolonging the conflict in the first place.
- Iran and Israel: He brokered a ceasefire after joining Israel in airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites. In response, Iran bombed a major U.S. base in Qatar. The peace that followed came only after immense destruction on all sides.
- India and Pakistan: Trump announced a ceasefire after several days of air raids, with Pakistan praising his intervention, while India dismissed his involvement outright.
- Cambodia and Thailand: A truce came after Trump’s calls to regional leaders, though Malaysia and China also played critical mediation roles. Only Cambodia publicly thanked him.
- Serbia and Kosovo: An earlier deal signed in 2020 under Trump’s first term has held tenuously, though tensions persist.
- Egypt and Ethiopia: While Trump claims to have ended a war here, there has never been an actual armed conflict—only diplomatic strain over the Nile dam project.
- Rwanda and DRC: Trump facilitated a fragile truce that still faces potential collapse.
- Armenia and Azerbaijan: He helped arrange a White House peace agreement in August, but later confused Azerbaijan with Albania in a TV interview, raising doubts over his grasp of global affairs.
Echoes of Nobel Past
Even if Trump were to win, the Nobel Peace Prize wouldn’t be free of controversy—it never has been. Henry Kissinger’s award in 1973, amid the horror of the Vietnam War, and Barack Obama’s in 2009, granted before his policies had taken form, both drew heavy criticism. In fact, many now label Obama’s early win “premature,” given his later expansion of U.S. drone warfare.
The list continues: Israeli leaders Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres received the prize in 1994 for the Oslo Accords, yet their hands were not clean of conflict. Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi, celebrated in 1991 as a symbol of democracy, was later condemned for ignoring genocide against the Rohingya.
So perhaps the real question isn’t whether Trump is too controversial—but whether controversy itself is part of the Nobel tradition.
Trump’s Drive for Recognition
Trump’s desire for the prize is hardly a secret. He often compares himself to Barack Obama, who won it in his first year as president. “If my name were Obama,” Trump once quipped, “I’d have gotten the Nobel in ten seconds.” According to Norwegian media, Trump has even personally reached out to former NATO chief and current Norwegian Finance Minister Jens Stoltenberg to lobby for consideration.
Accusations of Aggression
But can a man who has ordered airstrikes across multiple nations truly be called a peacemaker? During his current term, Trump doubled U.S. bombings in Somalia, launched attacks against Yemen’s Houthi rebels, and conducted military operations in the Caribbean. He has even floated annexing territories such as Greenland and Canada—moves that critics describe as neo-imperialist rather than peace-driven.
As Graeger noted, “Trump’s withdrawal from multilateral cooperation and his confrontational style often contradict the spirit of Alfred Nobel’s legacy.”
The Power—and Politics—of Nomination
Nominations for this year’s Peace Prize closed in January, just days after Trump was reinstated. Still, support has poured in from high places. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Cambodia’s Hun Manet, and both the Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders have publicly endorsed him. His envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, even called him “the single finest candidate.” Yet due to Nobel Committee rules, nominations made after July count toward the 2026 prize instead.
The Stakes If He Loses
At a military meeting in Virginia last month, Trump made it clear what he thinks of the potential outcome: “If I don’t get it, it’s an insult to America.” He accused the Nobel Committee of favoritism, saying they might “give it to some guy who wrote a book about the mind of Donald Trump.”
In Norway, some worry how Trump might retaliate. With existing U.S. tariffs on Norwegian exports and diplomatic tensions over Norway’s decision to divest from companies linked to Israel’s war in Gaza, relations are already strained. Still, Norwegian officials stress that the Nobel Committee operates independently of their government.
Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eid told Bloomberg, “It’s totally up to the Committee—it’s not a government decision.”
A Divided World Watches
In many ways, Trump’s potential win—or loss—will again test how the world defines peace. Is it the quiet that follows domination, or the result of diplomacy rooted in compromise? Can power produce peace, or only the illusion of it?
And here’s the part that may split opinion: if the Nobel Peace Prize has repeatedly gone to figures with controversial legacies, does Trump’s candidacy really fall outside tradition—or does it fit perfectly within it? What do you think: should bold action, even if violent, be rewarded if it ends wars? Or should peace prizes only honor those who pursue nonviolence above all else?
