The debate over Donald Trump’s Nobel Peace Prize candidacy is fundamentally a clash between two competing visions of foreign policy. There is Trump’s transactional, bilateral approach, focused on making “deals.” And then there is the Nobel’s ideal of a world governed by multilateral cooperation and international law. These two visions are mutually exclusive.
Trump’s foreign policy was the embodiment of “The Art of the Deal” on a global scale. His crowning achievement, the Abraham Accords, was a classic example: a series of bilateral agreements driven by the specific, calculated interests of the parties involved. His supporters see this as a refreshingly effective and pragmatic way to conduct international relations.
The Nobel Committee, however, subscribes to a very different philosophy. Its ideals are rooted in the post-World War II consensus that peace is best secured through global institutions, shared norms, and collective security. The prize exists to champion this ideal of a community of nations working together, rather than a collection of states making separate deals.
This ideological conflict is evident across Trump’s record. His withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, the Iran nuclear deal, and various UN bodies were all actions that prioritized bilateral freedom of action over multilateral commitment. Each move was a step away from the Nobel’s ideal and a step toward his own transactional vision.
Because the Nobel Peace Prize is an award for a particular type of foreign policy—one based on fraternity and cooperation—it cannot logically be given to a leader who has been the world’s most prominent critic of that very model. The committee will almost certainly award a laureate whose career has been dedicated to upholding their vision, not undermining it.
