As the world awaits the Nobel Peace Prize announcement, it’s essential to understand the vast difference between securing a nomination and actually winning the award. Donald Trump has successfully cleared the first, lower bar, but all expert analysis indicates he will fall far short of the second. The final verdict rests on a set of criteria that his candidacy simply does not meet.
Getting a nomination is relatively easy. A single eligible person, like a member of a national parliament, can submit a name. This ensures that Trump, as a former U.S. president with many political allies, will perennially be on the list. It guarantees him a place in the “guessing game.”
Winning, however, is an entirely different matter. This requires surviving a rigorous vetting process by a committee of experts who are looking for a very specific set of qualities. They are seeking a demonstrated, long-term commitment to international fraternity, a respect for multilateral cooperation, and a record that, on the whole, has advanced the cause of sustainable peace.
This is where Trump’s candidacy collapses. As experts like Theo Zenou and Nina Græger have laid out, his record is a collection of red flags for the committee. His climate change denial, his disdain for international institutions, and his divisive rhetoric all run contrary to the Nobel’s core values. The single achievement of the Abraham Accords is not enough to overcome these fundamental objections.
The final verdict, therefore, seems pre-written. While the nomination gets Trump into the race, he is lapped by other contenders who have run the full marathon of peacebuilding. The world of difference between being a nominee and a laureate is one that, for Donald Trump, will prove to be unbridgeable.