Special for followers of codigopostalrd.net
US President Donald Trump’s aspirations for the Nobel Peace Prize have been a prominent and controversial topic throughout his second term, intensifying especially since January 2025.
Trump has openly expressed his desire to win the prize on multiple occasions, stating that he “deserves” it for having negotiated ceasefires and peace agreements in as many as eight global conflicts.
These include the Abraham Accords of his first term, the recent de-escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan, the 12-day war between Israel and Iran, and a ceasefire in Gaza, based on his 20-point peace plan presented in early October 2025.
He has presented the award as a validation of his “peace through strength” doctrine, telling military leaders at Quantico Marine Corps Base on September 30, 2025, that ending an “eighth war” would make him exceptionally deserving, and warning that denying him the award would be a “great insult” to the United States.
Despite telling CBS News in September 2025 that he “does not aspire” to the award and only wants to “save lives,” his public and private lobbying, including calls to world leaders and allies, suggests otherwise.
The 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, will be announced on October 10, 2025, with the ceremony taking place on December 10.
The nomination period closed on January 31, 2025, shortly after Trump’s inauguration, with 338 candidates (244 individuals and 94 organizations). While the committee does not reveal the nominees until 50 years later, at least one U.S. congresswoman (Claudia Tenney, R-NY) confirmed Trump’s nomination for his work on the Abraham Accords.
Endorsements received after the deadline from figures such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (July 2025), the government of Pakistan (June 2025 for India-Pakistan diplomacy), and the Israel Hostage Families Forum (October 2025 for Gaza hostage efforts) bolster its case, but cannot retroactively qualify it for 2025.
These efforts have drawn praise from allies like Netanyahu, who posted on X on October 9, 2025: “Give @realDonaldTrump the Nobel Peace Prize! He deserves it!”
Similar sentiments were echoed by Rwanda, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, and US figures like Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.
Trump’s aspirations have had multifaceted effects, amplifying his global profile and deepening divisions:
The swift implementation of the Gaza deal on October 9, 2025, has unified voices of support for Trump in Israel and Gaza, with chants of his name heard in both regions.
This has strengthened US influence in the Middle East, deterring Iranian and Russian ambitions and fostering economic integration (e.g., potential ties between Saudi Arabia and Israel).
Analysts such as CNN’s Brett McGurk argue that, if maintained, these frameworks could reduce the risk of broader conflicts, including the one over Taiwan. National momentum. Supporters of X, including @WhiteHouse and @glennbeck, present this as vindication against progressive elites, with posts such as “Obama started 6 wars and won a Nobel. Trump finished 9 and won nothing,” generating thousands of interactions. Betting odds on Polymarket briefly rose to 4.9% before falling to 2.4% amid the Gaza talks.
Critics consider Trump’s claims exaggerated; for example, India rejected US mediation credit, and the “peace” in Gaza is perceived as fragile amid the continued occupation.
His withdrawal from global treaties (e.g., the Paris Agreement) and “America First” policies are cited as weakening multilateralism, a key criterion for the Nobel Prize.
On X, reactions are sharply divided: pro-Trump users like @catturd2 declare, “If Trump doesn’t get it, it means nothing,” while opponents like @biovectone accuse complicity in “genocide” through US aid to Israel, warning that it would “damage the integrity [of the prize].”
The quest has generated both short-term benefits and long-term risks:
Successful deals like the one in Gaza have reduced immediate threats, saving lives and increasing US influence. However, experts warn of fragility; Nina Græger of the Oslo Peace Research Institute noted on October 9 that the events in Gaza came “too late” for 2025, but could influence 2026 if they persist.
Trump’s pro-Russian stance in the Ukraine talks has alienated European allies, potentially isolating the United States.
Norway fears US retaliation if Trump is snubbed, according to Bloomberg, reminiscent of past pressures such as China’s threats in 2010 over Liu Xiaobo’s award.
Trump’s pressure—calling Norway’s finance minister and pressuring nominees—has backfired, with the committee’s deputy director, Asle Toje, declaring on September 27, 2025, that such “influence campaigns” have a “negative effect.” False claims on social media about Trump’s “disqualification” (denied by Newsweek) fueled disinformation.
It has intensified partisan divisions, with 76% of Americans (according to polls cited in the media) skeptical of Trump’s “peace” record due to aid to Gaza and domestic unrest. Globally, it highlights the tensions between unilateralism and the Nobel ideals of “fraternity among nations.”
Trump’s Nobel aspirations encapsulate his disruptive foreign policy. Bold, results-oriented interventions that bring about ceasefires, but often at the expense of lasting alliances and institutional norms.
While his breakthrough in Gaza on October 9, 2025, positions him as a candidate for 2026—with the possibility of winning the “125th Nobel” if regulatory frameworks are maintained—experts such as historian Theo Zenou and PRIO’s Græger consider 2025 a “long shot” or “no shot,” citing his climate denialism, affinity for Putin, and aggressive lobbying as disqualifying factors.
As Nobel historian Asle Sveen put it: “He has no chance… of dismantling the international world order that the prize committee cherishes.”
Ultimately, the saga underscores an irony: an award meant to honor quiet bridge-building has become a focus of bombast.
If Trump wins in the coming years, it would reaffirm his narrative as an overlooked genius; denial would fuel accusations of elite bias, as seen in posts like @ScottJenningsKY’s: “Thanks for reminding me [of Obama’s win] why Trump deserves it today, pre-COB.”
In any case, Trump’s push has undoubtedly boosted short-term peace, albeit at the cost of greater global skepticism toward American intentions. The real legacy may not lie in a medallion, but in whether these agreements foster lasting stability or merely serve as springboards for personal acclaim.
