President Donald Trump’s pursuit of a Nobel Peace Prize has taken center stage in recent weeks, with his boasts of ending conflicts and his dramatic foreign policy moves drawing attention—and controversy—both at home and abroad. Yet, as the world watches, Trump’s actions and rhetoric have sparked fresh debates about America’s role as a global peacemaker, the dangers of nuclear brinkmanship, and the risks of military intervention in volatile regions like Nigeria.
According to The New Republic, Trump has made no secret of his desire to be recognized as a peace president. He has repeatedly claimed credit for resolving international disputes, famously stating he “ended eight wars in just eight months.” Among these, he points to cease-fire agreements between Cambodia and Thailand and a tenuous truce between Hamas and Israel. Trump even went so far as to declare, “until him we’ve never had a president that solved one war. Not one.” These bold assertions, however, have not translated into a Nobel Prize—something he reportedly resented after being snubbed by the Nobel Committee this year.
The comparison to Theodore Roosevelt, the first American president to win a Nobel Prize, is an instructive one. Roosevelt’s achievement came in 1905, when he brokered peace between two great powers—Russia and Japan—at a time when few believed diplomacy could halt their bloody conflict. The Russo-Japanese War, which raged from 1904 to 1905, saw Japan, an emerging industrial power, deliver a series of stunning naval defeats to Russia. The attack on Port Arthur in February 1904 and the decisive Battle of Tsushima in May 1905 were pivotal, resulting in the destruction of Russia’s fleet and heavy casualties. As The New Republic recounts, the war claimed some 150,000 Japanese and Russian lives and is now seen by historians as a turning point, marking Asia’s rise and the dawn of modern industrial warfare.
Roosevelt’s role was not merely symbolic. When the conflict threatened to spiral further, he quietly worked behind the scenes, gathering diplomats from both sides at Portsmouth Naval Base in New Hampshire and later at his own home in Oyster Bay, New York. Despite stalled negotiations, Roosevelt’s persistence paid off. He convinced Russia to make concessions, leaned on European governments to press for peace, and ultimately secured an agreement that, while imperfect, ended hostilities. The international response was effusive. The London Morning Post marveled, “Mr. Roosevelt’s success has amazed everybody.” Germany’s King Wilhelm II wrote to Roosevelt, “the whole of mankind must unite and will do so in thanking you for the great boon you have given it.” Even the Pope reportedly said, “This is the happiest news of my life. Thank God for President Roosevelt.” For these efforts, Roosevelt was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, a milestone in both American and diplomatic history.
Contrast this with Trump’s more recent foreign policy moves. On November 1, 2025, as reported by IBTimes UK, Trump abruptly ordered the Pentagon to “prepare for possible action” against Nigeria. The order, issued via his Truth Social platform, threatened to cut off all US aid and floated the prospect of military intervention to “wipe out the Islamic terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities.” The post, vivid in its language but lacking in specifics, did not cite new intelligence or a clear trigger for such action. Instead, it followed the re-addition of Nigeria to the US “Country of Particular Concern” list for alleged violations of religious freedom—a designation that carries diplomatic weight but does not automatically justify military action.
Nigeria’s response was swift and unequivocal. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu rejected Trump’s characterization of the country as uniquely hostile to Christians, calling it a misrepresentation of Nigeria’s complex realities. The Nigerian government reaffirmed its constitutional commitment to religious freedom and expressed a desire for cooperation against extremist groups, while firmly defending its sovereignty. Human-rights organizations and regional analysts reminded the public that violence in Nigeria is driven by a tangle of factors—Islamist insurgency, communal clashes, and criminal gangs—and that both Christians and Muslims are victims. Simplistic narratives, they warned, risk inflaming sectarian tensions and misdirecting policy.
Legal and military experts, cited by IBTimes UK, pointed out the daunting challenges of any US military action in Nigeria. Such operations typically require either an invitation from the host government or clear legal justification under US and international law. The logistics of counter-insurgency are notoriously complex, demanding precise intelligence and multinational cooperation to avoid civilian harm. Humanitarian organizations cautioned that even talk of intervention could worsen the plight of civilians, impede relief efforts, and destabilize fragile peace processes.
“Only time will tell whether words become action,” one security analyst commented. “But the stakes for millions of Nigerians are already being reshaped by a single social-media post.” The international community, including the African Union, is watching closely, wary of the potential for escalation and the precedent such unilateral moves might set.
Meanwhile, Trump’s approach to nuclear policy has also drawn scrutiny. On November 3, 2025, India Today reported Trump’s declaration that the United States possesses “enough nuclear weapons to blow up the world 150 times.” This statement came on the heels of his failed Nobel Peace Prize bid and after he directed the Pentagon to resume nuclear weapons testing, ending a 33-year moratorium that had been in place since 1992. Trump defended this move by alleging that Russia, China, North Korea, and Pakistan are secretly conducting their own nuclear tests, and he argued that the US should not be the only country abstaining from such activities.
In an interview with CBS News anchor Norah O’Donnell, Trump explained, “Well, we have more nuclear weapons than any other country. And I think we should do something about denuclearisation. And I did actually discuss that with both President Putin and President Xi. We have enough nuclear weapons to blow up the world 150 times. Russia has a lot of nuclear weapons, and China will have a lot. They have some.” He further justified resuming tests by stating, “Because you have to see how they work. You know, you do have to, and the reason I’m saying, testing is that Russia announced that they were going to be doing a test. If you notice, North Korea’s constantly testing. Other countries are testing. We’re the only country that doesn’t test, and... I don’t want [US] to be the only country that doesn’t test.”
Trump’s comments have reignited fears of a new nuclear arms race and sparked heated debates about deterrence and global security. Critics argue that resuming nuclear tests could undermine decades of nonproliferation efforts and provoke rivals into further escalation. Supporters, however, echo Trump’s concerns about strategic parity and the need for the US to maintain a credible deterrent in the face of secretive testing by adversaries.
As the world reflects on the legacy of peacemakers like Theodore Roosevelt, Trump’s actions highlight the enduring tension between diplomacy and force, reassurance and provocation. Whether his bold pronouncements will lead to lasting peace or further instability remains to be seen, but the consequences—for America and the world—are already reverberating.
