Trump says he should win the Nobel Peace Prize for ‘stopping the obliteration of the world… but they don’t give it to people like me’
Donald Trump has again said he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, claiming his actions have stopped the “obliteration” of mankind and helped end eight wars. He predicted another success despite stalled ceasefire talks with Iran, while acknowledging that the committee may not choose someone like him.
The 2026 prize is due to be announced on Friday, with Pope Leo XIV among the reported frontrunners. Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado gave Trump her 2025 medal in January, but the Nobel Committee said awards cannot be shared or transferred. A settlement to Russia’s war in Ukraine remains out of reach, while the conflict involving US and Israeli strikes on Iran has disrupted energy supplies and raised petrol prices.
- Trump says his actions merit the Nobel Peace Prize.
- He claims to have ended eight wars and saved millions of lives.
- The Nobel Committee says Machado’s medal cannot be transferred.
New here? Start with this
The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded annually by a Norwegian committee to recognise contributions to international peace and understanding. The award carries significant global prestige and influence in international affairs.
Donald Trump is a prominent political figure who has held high office in the United States and remains influential in global affairs. His approaches to international conflicts have involved both diplomatic negotiations and military interventions, making his role in global politics a matter of ongoing international discussion.
Major international conflicts remain unresolved, including the war in Ukraine and military tensions in the Middle East involving the United States and Israel. These disputes affect global stability, energy supplies and international relations, making efforts toward peace in these regions a matter of considerable global importance.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Proponents argue that the Nobel Peace Prize should recognise tangible diplomatic achievement in reducing armed conflict, evaluated on its merits rather than the recipient's broader political persona. Should Trump have genuinely facilitated resolution of multiple wars through negotiation or strategic pressure, these measurable outcomes represent the core purpose of the award—reducing human suffering through peace. They contend that the committee should judge based on results and demonstrable impact rather than personal preferences or political differences.
The case against
Critics point out that major conflicts—Ukraine and Iran tensions—remain unresolved and actively escalating, which undermines claims of eight wars being conclusively ended. They argue the Nobel Peace Prize has historically required not merely temporary ceasefire or de-escalation but durable conflict resolution alongside demonstrated commitment to principled peace-building and human rights standards. Even accounting for partial diplomatic successes, they contend the ongoing major conflicts and the disputed characterisation of his achievements fall short of the award's traditional standard.