The foundation of Donald Trump’s repeated nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize rests almost entirely on a single, albeit significant, diplomatic achievement: the Abraham Accords. While his supporters see this as a clear-cut reason for him to win, Nobel experts argue that a single success may not be enough to outweigh a presidency defined by disruption of the international order.
In 2020, the Trump administration facilitated agreements that normalized relations between Israel and several Arab nations, including the UAE and Bahrain. This breakthrough earned him a nomination from U.S. Rep. Claudia Tenney and became the centerpiece of his claim to the prize. Trump has frequently cited the Accords as proof of his unique peacemaking abilities, contrasting his success with the failures of his predecessors.
Despite the historic nature of the Accords, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is known to take a holistic view of a candidate’s record. Analysts point out that while the Accords were a positive development, other aspects of Trump’s foreign policy were highly controversial. His withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris climate accord, for example, are seen as actions that undermined global stability and cooperation.
Historian Theo Zenou emphasizes that the committee looks for “bridge-builders” who foster “international cooperation and reconciliation.” Many would argue that Trump’s “America First” approach and his often-combative rhetoric toward allies did the opposite. His legacy is one of challenging the very multilateral institutions that previous Nobel laureates have worked to strengthen.
Ultimately, the committee must weigh the tangible success of the Abraham Accords against the broader impact of Trump’s presidency. Is one diplomatic victory sufficient to earn the world’s most prestigious peace prize? Given his divisive record on other key issues like climate change and international law, the consensus among Nobel watchers is a firm no.