What Is the Nobel Peace Prize?
The Nobel Peace Prize is one of five prizes created under the will of Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, who left his fortune to establish them. Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which are awarded in Sweden, the Peace Prize is chosen and presented by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, made up of five members appointed by Norway‘s parliament. This year’s winner will be announced Friday (Oct. 9) in Oslo.
Only eligible individuals can nominate candidates, including lawmakers, heads of state, university professors and former laureates. The Nobel Foundation‘s statutes bar the committee from disclosing information about nominations for 50 years. The secrecy rule applies to the committee, not the nominators, who are free to say they submitted a name. As a result, some names can surface publicly before the announcement, but that does not mean the committee has confirmed a nomination or that the person is among the favorites.
The prize is meant for whoever has done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the promotion of peace congresses. But in today’s geopolitical climate, who could win a Nobel Peace Prize in a world at war? In its annual report, released in April 2026, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) said the world spent $2.887 trillion on the military in 2025, equal to 2.5% of global GDP. It was the 11th consecutive year of increases.
That contrast between what the prize stands for and the current landscape is where the debate begins. While the Nobel seeks to recognize efforts for peace, the world is raising its military spending and living with conflicts in several regions. Even before the winner is announced, the nomination process itself raises a question: who can be nominated, and what does a nomination really mean?
A World That Spends on War
In 2025, military spending as a share of government spending reached its highest level on record in both Russia and Ukraine, , according to SIPRI. Russia spent the equivalent of 7.5% of its GDP on the military, while Ukraine reached 40% of GDP, or $84.1 billion. The United States, China and Russia together spent $1.48 trillion, equal to 51% of all military spending worldwide.
The institute’s findings come amid a rise in conflicts. According to data from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) at Uppsala University, published in June this year, 2025 saw 65 state-involved conflicts, the most since 1946. Conflicts between states also increased, from two in 2023 to eight in 2025.
As countries prioritize military spending, humanitarian aid is losing ground. According to the United Nations, as of December 2025 the humanitarian appeal for that year had received $12 billion, the lowest level in a decade, and aid agencies had been able to assist 25 million fewer people than the year before. The gap highlights how stark the contrast is between the resources devoted to the military and those available to help people affected by conflict.
That is the setting in which this year’s Nobel Peace Prize will be decided. And when nominations for the prize are made public, they can take on carry political interests and interpretations, as is the case with those of Donald Trump.
A Prize in Dispute
In August 2025, Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister Sun Chanthol publicly announced that his country would nominate Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. Days later, on Aug. 7, Prime Minister Hun Manet said he had formally submitted the nomination letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee. According to the Cambodian government, the reason was the U.S. president’s role in negotiations to end the border conflict between Cambodia and Thailand. Trump had spoken with the leaders of both countries and pressed for a ceasefire, which was negotiated in Malaysia. According to Reuters, the five days of fighting left 43 people dead and more than 300,000 displaced.
Cambodia was not alone. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in July 2025 that he had nominated Trump for the prize. According to Reuters, Netanyahu personally handed a nomination letter to the U.S. president during a meeting at the White House, , citing Trump’s diplomatic actions in the Middle East and his efforts to promote new peace agreements in the region. Pakistan also announced, in June 2025, that it would recommend Trump for the prize. According to Reuters, the Pakistani government cited the U.S. president’s role in de-escalating the conflict between India and Pakistan and in negotiating a ceasefire. India, however, disputed that account, saying the end of the fighting was the result of a bilateral decision between the two countries, without U.S. mediation.
The three nominations drew attention because the governments themselves made them public, but that does not mean Trump is officially among the favorites. According to Reuters, the Norwegian Nobel Committee received 287 candidates for the 2026 prize, 208 individuals and 79 organizations, but the names remain secret for 50 years. The agency also reported that there is no way to verify the nominations cited by the three governments, and that the committee’s secretary, Kristian Berg Harpviken, declined to say whether Trump had been nominated.
In this context, a nomination stops being merely a step in the process and takes on political meaning. Governments can announce their picks and tie them to particular diplomatic efforts, while the nominees become associated with the Nobel’s prestige before the committee has decided anything. The Trump case shows how this works: Cambodia, Israel and Pakistan credit the U.S. president with different diplomatic initiatives, while India disputes the role he claims in its conflict with Pakistan. Harpviken told Reuters that the Nobel Peace Prize is “even more important” in the current period, marked by rising conflicts and pressure on international cooperation.
precedents
The history of the Nobel Peace Prize is also marked by choices that sparked controversy. In 1973, the prize went to then-U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and North Vietnamese negotiator Le Duc Tho for the Paris peace agreement, which provided for a ceasefire and the withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam. The war, however, had not yet ended. Le Duc Tho declined the prize,, saying peace had not yet been established, and two members of the Nobel Committee resigned in protest. According to the Nobel organization itself, the decision drew negative reactions in Norway and elsewhere.
In 2009, Barack Obama‘s turn, only a few months after he took office as U.S. president. That decision also raised questions, because the prize came early in his term, when many of his promises and proposals had not yet turned into concrete results. In his acceptance speech, Obama himself acknowledged the controversy and said he was at the beginning, not the end, of his work on the international stage. The choice raised questions about how far the prize can recognize intentions or an expectation of change, before results materialize.
In 2022, the committee split the prize among Belarusian activist Ales Bialiatski, the Russian organization Memorial and Ukraine’s Center for Civil Liberties. The choice was presented as a defense of human rights, democracy and peaceful coexistence in three countries marked by repression and war. It was also read as a message against the authoritarian governments of Russia and Belarus and in support of Ukrainian civil society. At the same time, honoring Russian and Belarusian laureates during the war in Ukraine drew criticism.
These precedents show that controversy is nothing new for the prize. The Nobel acknowledges that the Peace Prize often sparks debate because it honors contemporary political figures and, even if only symbolically, intervenes in national and international conflicts.
The Rumored Candidates for 2026
Because the names remain officially secret, any list released before the announcement is based on nominations disclosed by nominators themselves or on experts’ assessments. The names that appear on those lists therefore cannot be treated as official candidates or as favorites confirmed by the committee.
Among the names mentioned in speculation are Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and the Ukrainian people. According to the Norwegian newspaper Dagsavisen, the nomination was submitted by Professor Dag Øistein Endsjø of the University of Oslo, who cited the role of Zelensky and the Ukrainian population in defending peace and European democracies against Russian aggression. Another name cited is Mykola Kuleba, a Ukrainian activist focused on protecting children affected by the war. Kuleba appears on the independent list compiled by the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), alongside the organization Save the Children, for work protecting, rescuing and assisting children in conflict situations.
PRIO’s list also includes the Sudanese network Emergency Response Rooms, made up of civilian initiatives and volunteers working amid the war in Sudan. The groups run community kitchens, evacuate people, provide medical care, repair infrastructure and offer other essential services in conflict-affected areas. For PRIO, recognition could draw attention to the importance of humanitarian aid in wars and to civil society’s ability to organize. The names show that, among the possibilities discussed by experts, there are not only heads of state but also individuals and organizations that work directly with populations affected by conflict.
Another name that remains tied to the debate over what the prize means is Iran‘s Narges Mohammadi, who won in 2023 for her fight against the oppression of women in Iran and for human rights. In 2026, she was jailed again and her health deteriorated seriously. In March she suffered a heart attack in detention, and in May she was transferred to a hospital in Tehran, where her sentence was temporarily suspended on medical grounds. She remains under threat of returning to prison. Mohammadi’s situation does not signal a new nomination, but it shows how former laureates continue to face the same problems they were honored for fighting against.
What Remains Open
In a year marked by wars, rising military spending and disputes over the role of international institutions, the choice of the Nobel Peace Prize winner also puts the meaning of the prize itself up for debate. If Alfred Nobel established fraternity between nations, the reduction of standing armies and the promotion of peace as his criteria, what does it mean to honor someone in a world that records ever-higher levels of military investment?
The data do not show that rising military spending causes greater politicization of the Nobel. But both trends are unfolding within the same international landscape: as states expand their defense budgets and conflicts multiply, the committee must decide who represents, at this moment, the idea of peace the prize is meant to defend. Trump’s nominations and the historical precedents show that this choice is never entirely separate from international politics.
That is where the central question remains: does the Nobel Peace Prize still work as a moral compass in a world at war? The answer may lie less in the lists of possible winners than in the choice announced this Friday. The winner could reinforce the idea that peace also means defending human rights, institutions, dialogue and cooperation, or prompt a new debate about the limits between recognition, diplomacy and politics.
Whoever receives the prize, the 2026 choice should say something not only about whom the committee considers to have worked for peace, but also about which idea of peace can still be defended in a world marked by war.
The article above was edited by Elisa Nuñez. Liked this type of content? Check Her Campus Cásper Líbero home page for more!