Donald Trump’s quest for the Nobel Peace Prize has become one of the most peculiar and persistent storylines in international politics. At the 2025 United Nations General Assembly, Trump once again declared his belief that he deserved the coveted award, claiming, "Everyone says that I should get a Nobel Peace Prize because I ended seven un-endable wars in seven months." The boast, delivered with his trademark bravado, was met with skepticism and bemusement worldwide. According to Project Syndicate, a recent poll revealed that only 22% of US adults agreed that Trump should receive the Nobel Peace Prize, while a resounding 76% disagreed.
Trump’s campaign for the prize is nothing new. He has been nominated several times, but as of September 2025, has never won. This year, he renewed his efforts, ramping up public statements and lobbying world leaders, even reportedly threatening Norway with tariffs if Oslo didn’t grant him the honor. His rationale, as quoted by Politico, hinges on his belief in his "singular capacity to end some of the world’s toughest conflicts, all largely without the help" of the United Nations or any other country. Yet, as The Week notes, the wars in Ukraine and Gaza continue unabated, and Trump’s claims of having ended seven wars have been widely debunked.
So, what are these seven wars Trump claims to have resolved? At the UN, he rattled off a list: Israel–Iran, India–Pakistan, Armenia–Azerbaijan, Congo–Rwanda, Serbia–Kosovo, Egypt–Ethiopia, and Thailand–Cambodia. The reality, as reported by Project Syndicate and corroborated by independent fact-checkers, is far less dramatic. Some of these conflicts were not full-scale wars, some have not stopped at all, and in several cases, Trump’s role was peripheral or nonexistent. For example, India flatly denied that Washington played any role in mediating its conflict with Pakistan in Kashmir. In the case of Armenia and Cambodia—countries more than 4,000 miles apart—there has never been any conflict to end.
Even in instances where Trump did play a part, such as brokering a US-mediated deal aimed at ending the conflict between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, deadly clashes continued after the so-called peace agreement. When border skirmishes erupted between Cambodia and Thailand in July 2025, it was not Trump’s intervention but the diplomatic efforts of ASEAN and Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim that brought about an "immediate and unconditional" ceasefire, according to Project Syndicate.
Trump’s penchant for taking credit for the diplomatic achievements of others has not gone unnoticed. After a terrorist attack in Indian-administered Kashmir in April 2025, India responded with military strikes against Pakistani terror camps, prompting Pakistan to back down. Trump, however, claimed he had mediated the crisis, a boast that Indian officials publicly refuted. Similarly, his so-called Middle East "peace deals"—which he touts as major diplomatic breakthroughs—mostly formalized existing relations between Gulf states and Israel, rather than resolving longstanding conflicts.
The most audacious of Trump’s claims may be his assertion that he ended the war between Israel and Iran. In reality, as Project Syndicate reports, Trump authorized Israel to strike Iranian positions, deployed US military assets to assist in shooting down Iranian missiles and drones, and ordered the bombing of Iranian nuclear sites. Far from peacemaking, these actions undermined the global nonproliferation regime and risked escalating tensions in the region.
Why is Trump so fixated on the Nobel Peace Prize? Analysts suggest that his obsession is about more than just international recognition. According to The New York Times, Trump’s public jockeying for the prize reflects a "burning desire to best his predecessors," most notably Barack Obama, who received the Nobel Peace Prize just nine months into his first term. Trump has repeatedly invoked Obama’s award, complaining that it was undeserved and using it as a benchmark for his own quest. The prize, for Trump, is not just a medal—it’s a symbol of acceptance and status that he feels has been denied to him by the global elite.
Despite Trump’s relentless campaigning, the Nobel Committee appears unmoved. As Reuters reported, the committee prefers to operate independently, "sheltering from outside pressures." Public lobbying and overt self-promotion are frowned upon. As Asle Toje, deputy leader of the committee, explained, "These types of influence campaigns have a rather more negative effect than a positive one. Some candidates push for it really hard and we do not like it." The louder the pitch, the colder the response.
Trump’s policies and style are also at odds with the Nobel’s ethos. Alfred Nobel’s will stipulated that the peace prize should go to those who "advance fellowship among nations." In practice, this means supporting international cooperation and strengthening institutions that promote peace. Trump, on the other hand, pulled the US out of the Paris Climate Accord, cut funding to the World Health Organization, launched tariff wars against allies, and openly supported strongmen. Historian Asle Sveen told Reuters, "He has no chance to get the Peace Prize at all," citing Trump’s support for Israel in Gaza and his overtures to Vladimir Putin.
Furthermore, Trump’s record on military action undermines his peace credentials. According to Foreign Policy, he is on pace to conduct more airstrikes in the first eight months of his presidency than Joe Biden did in four years. Many of the "peace deals" he boasts about include provisions that benefit the private sector, reducing US diplomacy to what Foreign Policy calls a "mercantilist collection of false wins that do little to advance peace."
The Nobel Peace Prize itself is not without controversy. Critics point out that past winners—Henry Kissinger, Yasser Arafat, even Barack Obama—were honored for symbolism or political expediency rather than concrete achievements. Mahatma Gandhi, the world’s most famous advocate for non-violence, was never awarded the prize, a decision Oslo has long admitted was a historic blunder. As Project Syndicate notes, the committee is keenly aware of these contradictions and is unlikely to court further controversy by awarding Trump.
Ultimately, Trump’s campaign for the Nobel Peace Prize seems less about genuine peacemaking and more about branding. As Project Syndicate put it, "Trump’s claim to have ended seven ‘un-endable’ wars is best understood as a case study in self-delusion. Branding is not leadership. Real peace depends on leaders who know the difference." For the Nobel Committee, and much of the world, peace is not the absence of war in a politician’s speech, but the presence of real, lasting change.
In the end, Trump’s fantasy of joining the ranks of Nobel laureates remains just that—a fantasy. No matter how many wars he claims to have ended, the committee’s decision will be based on actions, not applause.