While Donald Trump has touted his diplomatic deals as Nobel-worthy, experts caution that the prize committee looks for more than a high-profile handshake. The core criterion is the establishment of durable peace, a standard that analysts say Trump’s achievements have yet to meet. This focus on long-term stability makes his candidacy for the award highly improbable.
The main talking point for Trump’s supporters is the Abraham Accords, the 2020 agreements that normalized ties for Israel with the UAE and Bahrain. U.S. Rep. Claudia Tenney’s nomination rests on this diplomatic win. Trump himself has built on this, claiming to have “ended seven wars” and boasting of his peacemaking prowess, suggesting he could even solve the conflict in Gaza.
However, Theo Zenou, a research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, draws a sharp distinction between a temporary cessation of hostilities and a lasting resolution. “There’s a huge difference between getting fighting to stop in the short-term and resolving the root causes of the conflict,” Zenou said. The Nobel committee is known to favor laureates whose work contributes to systemic, long-lasting change, which takes years to properly assess.
This emphasis on durability works against Trump. Critics argue that his actions, such as moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, may have exacerbated underlying tensions in the Middle East, even while the Accords were being signed. His transactional, often personality-driven approach is seen as less stable than the patient, institution-based diplomacy the Nobel committee typically rewards.
Furthermore, his broader policy record, including his antagonism toward international alliances and his stance on climate change, suggests a disinterest in the foundational work of long-term peace. For the Nobel committee, peace is not just the absence of war, but the presence of cooperation, justice, and respect for international norms—areas where experts say Trump’s record falls significantly short.