On December 5, 2025, President Donald Trump stood in the spotlight at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., accepting the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize. The ceremony, held during the FIFA World Cup 2026 Official Draw, marked a moment of international fanfare for the former president, who has made no secret of his ambitions for global recognition, particularly the Nobel Peace Prize. Yet, while the gold medal glistened around his neck, the world stage painted a far more complicated picture of his peace-making legacy.
Trump has repeatedly claimed credit for resolving eight global conflicts in as many months, a boast he rarely misses an opportunity to share. According to NPR, he touts these efforts as historic achievements, often describing them as “peace in our time.” However, a closer look reveals that many of these agreements are either fragile, disputed, or, in some cases, unraveling altogether.
Take, for instance, the peace deal between Serbia and Kosovo, brokered in 2020 during Trump’s first term. This agreement, achieved with the support of NATO and the European Union, has largely held, standing out as a rare success in the former president’s portfolio. But not all his claims are so clear-cut. Trump also took credit for easing tensions between Egypt and Ethiopia over a hydroelectric dam on the Nile River. The reality? The two nations were never at war, instead locked in a tense, protracted dispute. Still, Trump’s team celebrated the outcome with characteristic enthusiasm.
Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, told NPR that Trump’s approach often oversells the significance of these agreements. “President Trump trumpets every one of these deals as being essentially peace in our time,” Boot said. “But they were all overhyped and oversold.” He pointed out a critical distinction: what Trump and his aides have frequently secured are ceasefires, not comprehensive peace agreements. “With the ceasefire, it can flare up into fighting at any moment,” Boot explained.
That warning has proven prescient. The Kuala Lumpur Peace Accord, signed in late October 2025 between Thailand and Cambodia, was initially hailed as a breakthrough. Yet, just a month later, violent clashes reignited along the border, and, according to The Washington Post, fighting flared up again in early December. The situation remains tense, casting doubt on the durability of the agreement.
A similar story has unfolded in Central Africa. Over the summer, a deal was brokered between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, with a formal signing ceremony taking place in Washington only weeks ago. Trump called the event a “glorious triumph,” but even as dignitaries gathered to sign the papers, violence between the DRC and the Rwanda-backed M23 militia continued to rage. As The Washington Post reported, the peace agreement is now under severe strain, with fresh clashes breaking out as recently as December 11, 2025.
Ivo Daalder, former U.S. ambassador to NATO and now a senior fellow at Harvard’s Belfer Center, offered a sobering assessment. “Long, festering problems between countries don’t get solved by signing a piece of paper in Washington,” Daalder said to NPR. “That takes painstaking diplomacy, hard work and a lot of time. And unless you can find a way to resolve the underlying conflict, countries are willing to use force to get their way.”
Despite these setbacks, Trump’s unconventional style has occasionally yielded unexpected results. Matthew Kroenig, senior director at the Atlantic Council, observed that Trump’s penchant for declaring victory before the details are settled sometimes forces other parties to act. “His unique style sometimes produces unexpected results, essentially declaring victory before it’s achieved,” Kroenig remarked, citing the case of Gaza as an example.
Trump has claimed credit for ending what he described as a 3,000-year Arab-Israeli conflict, a statement many experts view as hyperbolic. Still, his administration did help secure the release of all Israeli hostages held in Gaza over the past two years. Yet, as Daalder pointed out, “We haven’t been able to move beyond the ceasefire and the exchange of hostages to building a lasting, peaceful situation in Gaza,” let alone a broader peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
Perhaps most controversially, Trump brokered a peace deal between Israel and Iran after the U.S. conducted bombings of several Iranian nuclear sites. While the move momentarily reduced tensions, it did little to address the deep-seated issues fueling the rivalry.
Trump’s efforts to resolve decades-long tensions between India and Pakistan also came with complications. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi publicly disputed Trump’s claims of having brokered a breakthrough, a disagreement that swiftly escalated into a trade spat. Shortly after, Trump imposed a 50% tariff on most U.S. imports from India. Max Boot suggested to NPR that, while the official reason for the tariffs was India’s purchase of Russian oil, the real motivation may have been Trump’s frustration with Modi’s lack of support.
Yet, there are notable diplomatic accomplishments. During his first term, Trump succeeded in normalizing relations between Israel and several Arab nations, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco. “(It’s) pretty remarkable, getting these countries to recognize Israel and open up trade and travel,” Kroenig told NPR. These agreements, often grouped under the Abraham Accords, marked a significant shift in Middle Eastern geopolitics, even if they did not resolve the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Still, some of the world’s most entrenched disputes have resisted Trump’s efforts. The war between Ukraine and Russia remains unresolved, and, as Daalder noted, Trump’s confrontational stance toward Venezuela stands in stark contrast to his self-styled role as a peacemaker. In a twist of fate, the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize went not to Trump, but to María Corina Machado, the Venezuelan opposition leader.
For all the headlines and ceremonies, the reality on the ground often remains far messier than the fanfare in Washington. As Boot and Daalder both emphasized, true peace requires more than a signature or a handshake—it demands sustained engagement and a willingness to tackle the root causes of conflict. While Trump’s supporters point to his energetic, unconventional approach as a source of progress, critics argue that many of his so-called triumphs are little more than temporary ceasefires, vulnerable to collapse at a moment’s notice.
Still, for Trump, the accolades continue. The FIFA Peace Prize, with its gold medal and global stage, may not carry the gravitas of the Nobel, but it offers a tangible symbol of his efforts—however mixed their results may be. As the world watches, the durability of Trump’s peace deals will be tested not by the applause in Washington, but by the realities on the ground from Southeast Asia to Central Africa and beyond.