On Truth Social earlier this year, Donald J Trump sighed that he would “never” get the Nobel Peace Prize, no matter how many wars he (claims he) stopped. He then reminded us that Barack Obama got one in 2009 “for doing nothing.” That’s classic DJT for you, grievance mixed with self-promotion, with a side of humblebrag about saving the world.
He has since amassed a surprising number of 2025 Nobel Peace Prize nominations — from Pakistan, Cambodia, Israel, and the Caucasus — but his centrepiece claim about him brokering a full India-Pakistan ceasefire has been swiftly and firmly rejected by New Delhi. But if you ask Pakistan? They’re showering him with praise, but oddly enough, they’re also deep in trade and arms talks with Washington. Hmm. What a coincidence.
So the question has to be asked: Is Trump a legitimate peacemaker or just great at making headlines?
Trump’s Nobel ambition: A longstanding obsession.
Trump’s lust for the Nobel runs deep. He has openly dismissed Barack Obama’s 2009 award as unearned. This envy never faded. His first-term Abraham Accords generated diplomatic buzz, but no prize. In 2025, his campaign has become overt: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claims Trump has “brokered one peace deal per month” since January. One per month! Nobel by subscription service. Trump even went so far as to cold-call Norway’s finance minister, Jens Stoltenberg, to “chat” about the prize. Yes, the finance minister. Because who else would you talk to about the Nobel Peace Prize other than the guy who handles budgets, right?
A case study in exaggeration.
In May 2025, Trump claimed on Truth Social that after many phone calls and a “long night of talks,” he secured a “full and immediate ceasefire” between India and Pakistan and even prevented nuclear war. New Delhi rejected that narrative and said, “What phone call?” PM Modi and Foreign Secretary Misri both said the ceasefire was bilateral, following Operation Sindoor, and that no foreign mediation occurred. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar reiterated that Modi and Trump didn’t even talk during the crisis and that India will “never accept mediation,” directly undermining Trump’s claim. Social media in India had a field day. Memes popped up crediting Trump with ending World War II, negotiating with aliens, and stopping the moon landing. You get the idea.
Meanwhile, Pakistan formally nominated Trump in June 2025, calling him a “genuine peacemaker” whose “strategic foresight” prevented nuclear escalation. The nomination followed a high-profile White House lunch between Trump and Pakistan Army Chief Asim Munir. Interesting timing, no? What’s even funnier is that evidence shows India and Pakistan settled the ceasefire through their own backchannels, with no input from the U.S. at all. In other words, Trump wasn’t at the table. But hey, why let facts ruin DJT’s Nobel Peace Prize campaign?
Arms deals and strategic favours.
Pakistan’s relationship with Washington runs on arms, aid, and tariffs. So nominating Trump for the Nobel looks a lot less like admiration and a lot more like, “Please keep the military hardware coming”.
Other Nominators
- Cambodia nominated Trump after a border clash with Thailand ended, and right after the U.S. slashed Cambodian tariffs. Totally unrelated, of course.
- Israel nominated him following the Iran–Israel ceasefire, along with his reliably pro-Israel policies. Shocked? Didn’t think so.
- Armenia and Azerbaijan both nominated him after a White House summit produced the “Trump Corridor” transit route. Imagine getting a Nobel for opening a road.
Did you notice how all the nominators are either strategically US-dependent or governed by authoritarian leaders? Hmm, I wonder why. It’s almost like the Nobel nods are diplomatic IOUs under the veneer of peace.
Other questionable claims and setbacks.
Trump has made other grand promises that crumbled under scrutiny. Trump’s track record isn’t all Nobel-worthy highlights.
- He promised to end the Russia–Ukraine war in 24 hours. Months later, Ukraine’s Oleksandr Merezhko withdrew his nomination because, shocker, the war didn’t end.
- The Gaza ceasefire collapsed soon after Trump took office.
- His touted Iran–Israel ceasefire was followed almost immediately by U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites (Daily Beast). Lasting peace indeed.
Even Norwegian think tanks, usually polite, haven’t listed Trump as a frontrunner. Oof, that has to hurt.
The Nobel process and Trump’s chances.
Now for the fun part. You cannot campaign for the Nobel Peace Prize. Thousands of experts and officials can nominate candidates, but the committee’s deliberations that have been kept secret for 50 years are intended to remain independent. Past U.S. winners like Roosevelt, Wilson, Carter, and Obama were honoured for things like founding the League of Nations or advancing democracy. By contrast, Trump’s record leans heavily on media-friendly headlines and imaginary peace deals. Slight difference.
With 338 candidates in consideration in 2025, Trump stands out, mostly for how loudly he’s campaigning. India’s explicit rebuttal, failed promises, and the perception that nominations are transactional all weaken his case, especially before a committee wary of political posturing.
Donald Trump’s Nobel Peace Prize campaign is dripping with drama and weak on substance. His India–Pakistan ceasefire claim has been firmly denied by India. Pakistan’s nomination looks more like a down payment on future U.S. favours. Other endorsements from Cambodia to the Caucasus appear tied to strategic interests, not peace.
Yes, Trump has dabbled in diplomacy. But when you inflate your role in every conflict, the exaggerations drown out the actual work. October’s Nobel announcement will show whether the committee values substance or spectacle. But if you ask me, it’s not looking good for DJT.
If you enjoyed this breakdown of spectacle vs. substance, check out more of my articles where I unpack the headlines that demand a second look.
Thank you for your attention to this matter!