When Peace Sparks Debate: The Storms Behind The Nobel’s Calm

Speculation that US President Donald Trump might receive the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize finally ended when the award was given to Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado. That outcome is just the latest chapter in what has long been a contentious history for the Nobel Peace Prize—one marked by criticism of its selections, questions about politics, and debates over what “peace work” really means.

Trump made no secret of his desire to win the Nobel Peace Prize. He has publicly claimed numerous times that he “deserves” it, citing what he describes as ceasefire agreements and diplomatic breakthroughs in conflicts like Gaza, India–Pakistan, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo—assertions that are often contested by analysts. He even reportedly called Norway’s finance minister unsolicited to ask about the prize.

Prediction markets had at times given him a real chance of winning in 2025, and some of his supporters—including foreign leaders—nominated him. Still, major polls in the US showed that most Americans believed he does not deserve it: one Washington Post–Ipsos poll found that 76% of respondents said Trump “does not merit” the honour. In a recent development, Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has decided to nominate Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Critics argue that Trump’s worldview—a more unilateral, transactional “America First” approach—runs counter to the multilateral, normative ideals that many believe the Peace Prize should represent. Some observers see his lobbying for the prize itself as undermining the integrity of the process. The White House denounced it as “politics over peace”, accusing the committee of bias.

To understand why the prize itself often draws criticism, it helps to look at some of the structural challenges and contested histories of the award.

The Peace Prize often goes to political actors or live issues, which means that its recipients tend to attract partisan scrutiny. When a sitting or recent political leader is selected, the decision can be seen as implicitly supporting one side of a conflict or endorsing a particular political vision.

Over its history, the Peace Prize has featured some selections widely criticised as ill-fitting or premature. In 1973, Henry Kissinger and the Vietnamese revolutionary and diplomat, Lê Đức Thọ, were chosen for the Nobel for brokering a ceasefire in Vietnam. It was seen as highly divisive. Lê Đức, however, declined the prize, and two members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee resigned in protest. Critics argued that war was still ongoing and that Kissinger’s role in bombing campaigns made him an odd choice.

In 1994, when Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin, and Shimon Peres were jointly chosen for the Nobel, many were scathing in their criticism of Arafat’s inclusion due to his role in prior armed conflict. American journalist Jay Nordlinger, in an article, even called Arafat “the worst man ever to win the Nobel Peace Prize.”

Controversy trailed Barack Obama when he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize just nine months into his presidency in 2009. The decision drew charges of being premature. In his memoir, ‘Secretary of Peace’, Geir Lundestad, former director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, regretted giving the Nobel to Obama.

In 2012, when the European Union (EU) was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize during the Eurozone crisis, critics questioned how the EU, as a large and complex political entity, aligned with Nobel’s vision of peace and disarmament. Some argued the EU’s role as a weapons producer conflicted with the ideals of disarmament and peace. Because these awards draw such strong reactions, any future selection—especially of a divisive figure like Trump—was always likely to be controversial.

The will of Alfred Nobel states that the Peace Prize should go “to the person who has done the most or best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for holding and promotion of peace congresses.” But Nobel’s wording leaves much room for interpretation—especially in a world where peace efforts, diplomacy, human rights, and conflict prevention take many forms.

Who picks the laureate? The Nobel Peace Prize is decided by a five-person committee appointed by the Norwegian Parliament (Storting) and aided by external advisers. Some critics argue that because committee members are often political figures themselves, selections can reflect ideological leanings or strategic agendas.

Just as much as controversial winners stir debate, so do the notable absences. The most conspicuous omission—Mahatma Gandhi—never received the prize, despite global moral stature. The Nobel Committee has since publicly regretted this. Other figures like Václav Havel, Eleanor Roosevelt, Ken Saro-Wiwa, and Fazle Hasan Abed are often cited as overlooked candidates. Some omissions reflect political pressure or constraints, others a narrow interpretation of “peace work”.

The writer is an independent journalist.

news