In recent weeks, speculation has swirled around the possibility of President Donald Trump receiving the Nobel Prize for Peace.
Objectively, his record on diplomacy and conflict resolution exceeds that of any recent US president. Still, he’s unlikely to receive that honor – not because he hasn’t earned it, but because his worldview conflicts with the ideological bias of the Nobel Committee. And even if the prize were offered, Trump should decline – not out of spite, but on principle.
The Nobel Peace Prize once stood for moral courage and real-world impact. Today, it serves as a political endorsement – a token awarded to those who echo the committee’s favored ideologies, not those who produce tangible peace. Former US presidents Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter received the Nobel Prize, as well as Yasser Arafat, despite deeply flawed records marked by failure, instability, or direct links to violence.
Trump’s first administration – and now his second – brokered historic peace deals, defused global tensions, and reversed decades of US foreign policy inertia. The Nobel Committee remained silent. Not because Trump failed to achieve peace, but because he refused to reflect its political values.
Obama received the Nobel in 2009 just nine months into his presidency. No conflicts had ended, no treaties signed, and no significant diplomatic shifts had occurred. The committee cited “extraordinary efforts to strengthen diplomacy,” but even The New York Times questioned the logic, pointing out that Obama had yet to accomplish any foreign policy objectives. The award was not for achievements, but for anticipated future action.
Obama honored by Nobel Prize Committee
Worse, while the Nobel Committee celebrated Obama, his administration missed key moments in support of democracy. In 2009, during the Iranian Green Movement – the largest pro-democracy uprising in the Middle East since the fall of the Berlin Wall – Obama chose silence. His team claimed it wasn’t the role of the United States to interfere. In truth, Obama was focused on securing a nuclear deal with Iran and feared any show of support for regime change would jeopardize that goal.
By 2015, Obama’s administration had negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), unfreezing over $180 billion in Iranian assets and sending the regime $1.7 billion in unmarked cash. That money didn’t improve life for Iranian citizens – it went to terror proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which have killed civilians and US personnel alike.
Worse still, Iran never adhered to the deal’s terms. The regime flouted inspections, obstructed transparency, and violated the agreement almost from day one. These failures were predictable – and predicted. The deal empowered Iran without accountability.
Carter’s Nobel is no better justified. He received the prize in 2002 for his “decades of work” in promoting peace and human rights. But, as president, Carter played a direct role in destabilizing Iran – a mistake with generational consequences. His administration pressured shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, a secular and pro-Western leader, to rapidly liberalize, releasing political prisoners, expanding press freedoms, and loosening state security. These rushed reforms weakened the regime just as radical Islamists were gaining power. The resulting vacuum enabled Khomeini’s rise.
The regime that followed has sponsored terrorism worldwide, murdered US soldiers through proxies, and executed dissidents at home and abroad. Carter admitted in his own memoir that he misjudged the shah’s vulnerability, writing, “I should have recognized earlier that the Shah’s position was irreparably weakened.”
That failure culminated in the 444-day Iran hostage crisis – an international humiliation.
Arafat remains perhaps the Nobel Committee’s most shameful choice.
He received the prize in 1994 for signing the Oslo Accords with Israeli leaders. Yet Arafat’s history includes the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre, in which 11 Israeli athletes were murdered, and over 40 airplane hijackings between 1968 and 1977.
Even after Oslo, Arafat funneled aid to terrorist groups, empowered Hamas, and incited the Second Intifada, during which more than 1,000 Israeli civilians were killed. Honoring him exposed the Nobel Committee’s deeply flawed judgment.
Trump’s record stands in stark contrast.
In 2020, his administration negotiated the Abraham Accords – establishing formal diplomatic and economic relations between Israel and four Arab nations: the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. This was the most significant Arab-Israeli breakthrough since the Camp David Accords of 1978.
Within a year, trade between Israel and the UAE surpassed $1.2 billion; by 2023, it topped $2.5 billion. These agreements produced embassies, direct flights, security cooperation, and cultural exchange – all without war, land giveaways, or Palestinian statehood as a prerequisite.
In South Asia, following the 2025 Pahalgam terrorist attack and India’s military response, the Trump administration used backchannel diplomacy to prevent war between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan. This behind-the-scenes effort helped avert a regional catastrophe – an achievement largely ignored in mainstream coverage.
In Africa, Trump’s diplomats helped negotiate a peace agreement between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo – two nations whose long-standing conflict has killed over 5 million people. The agreement addressed disarmament, border security, refugee repatriation, and humanitarian access. It also stabilized a region vital to global tech supply chains, thanks to its cobalt and lithium reserves.
Yet none of these accomplishments drew praise from the Nobel Committee. Its silence speaks volumes. Honoring Trump would validate a philosophy the Committee rejects – one in which peace is forged through strength, where moral clarity matters, and where American leadership is unapologetic.
The Nobel Peace Prize has devolved into a political symbol and has become more about ideological alignment than measurable impact. If offered the award now, Trump should decline it. Not out of bitterness, but to avoid legitimizing an institution that has rewarded failure, celebrated extremists, and ignored real progress.
A peace prize that no longer stands for peace is not worth accepting.
The writer is a nationally syndicated columnist for Townhall Media and Newsmax. His writing regularly appears in publications such as The Wall Street Journal, New York Post, The Hill, and several prominent Jewish outlets.