Why Donald Trump Did Not Receive the Nobel Peace Prize
There are two prevailing schools of thought on why President Donald Trump should or should not have received the Nobel Peace Prize.
In my opinion, there are many reasons why he didn't receive the Nobel Peace Prize. The first point is that by repeatedly claiming he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, Donald Trump has effectively politicized the award. The Nobel Prize is not a prize that one can demand that they deserve or should be nominated for. By politicizing the award, he may have biased the committee in the sense that they feel manipulated, and awarding him that award may make them feel that they are complying with his “I deserve the Nobel Prize” campaign (BBC News, 2020).
As an observer, it appears that Donald Trump creates crises so that later he can claim that he alone resolved the problems he created.
Throughout his political career, Donald Trump has shown a recurring pattern of amplifying or even manufacturing crises, only to later claim credit for resolving them. This approach creates the illusion of decisive leadership while concealing the fact that the instability often originated from his own actions (Reuters, 2020; Washington Post, 2024).
A clear example is the North Korea nuclear crisis. Early in his first term, Trump's confrontational rhetoric — “fire and fury like the world has never seen” — brought the region to the brink of open conflict. Months later, when tensions subsided and diplomatic talks began, he presented the outcome as a personal triumph, claiming to have “stopped a war.” Yet North Korea's nuclear arsenal remained intact, and experts noted no verifiable disarmament (AP News, 2019; PBS NewsHour, 2019).
A similar pattern emerged in trade policy. Trump's imposition of sweeping tariffs on allies and rivals alike triggered retaliatory measures that harmed global markets and U.S. consumers. When partial deals were later struck — often restoring conditions that had existed before the tariffs — he framed them as “historic victories.” In effect, the damage and the “solution” were two parts of the same political performance (Financial Times, 2019; CNBC, 2020).
The same strategy can be seen in the Middle East. U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement reignited regional instability, while unconditional support for Israel's military actions deepened the Gaza crisis. When Trump later proposed his 20-point “peace plan,” he positioned himself as the architect of resolution — despite having helped enable the escalation that made such a plan necessary in the first place (PBS NewsHour, 2025; Al Jazeera, 2025).
The same pattern of manufactured crisis and self-justification is also evident within the United States. Domestically, Donald Trump's approach has increasingly centred on punitive politics — the pursuit of personal retribution against perceived opponents. Rather than fostering unity, his rhetoric and actions have deepened existing divisions, transforming political disagreement into moral hostility (New York Times, 2025).
Recent indictments and investigations targeting prominent Democrats have been presented by Trump and his allies as necessary acts of “justice,” yet to many observers they resemble political vengeance more than impartial law enforcement. When leaders use the instruments of the state to punish rivals, the effect is not restoration but corrosion — it weakens trust in democratic institutions and fuels the very instability that such actions claim to resolve (Guardian, 2025).
This domestic polarisation mirrors his foreign conduct: crises are created or magnified, and then authority is asserted as the sole path to order. The pattern sustains a cycle in which conflict becomes both the justification for power and the proof of its necessity. In this way, Trump's brand of leadership depends on division; peace, whether at home or abroad, is valuable only insofar as it can be personally credited to him.
Lastly, his 20 points, which were originally interpreted as an ultimatum — if all 20 points were not agreed to by Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement — implied that the consequences would be significant (PBS, 2025).
The problem with the entire 20 points is the complexity involved, and there are infinite ways players can respond. Therefore, accurately predicting the final outcome is based on what the probable outcome should be. This dynamic reflects the unpredictability described in game theory, where every player acts under uncertainty and strategic manipulation can destabilise any path to peace (Nash, 1950).
Donald Trump operates within a self-constructed paradox: he appears unpredictable, yet his unpredictability functions as strategy. To adversaries and observers alike, it can be difficult to distinguish whether he is an impulsive provocateur or a deliberate manipulator of perception. In either case, he has cultivated an image of absolute control — a political chess master who positions every piece, domestic and foreign, to ensure victory on his own terms. His willingness to employ distortion and false narratives — from linking Canadian trade to fentanyl trafficking, to claiming that immigrants are “eating dogs” — demonstrates a pattern of manufacturing emotional responses that reinforce his dominance within the public arena (Politico, 2025; CBC News, 2025).
From a game-theoretical perspective, this behaviour reflects a form of information warfare in which truth itself becomes a negotiable asset. By flooding the board with misinformation, he destabilises his opponents’ capacity for rational response. The objective is not persuasion but confusion — to make the opponent’s next move uncertain while his own appears decisive. This is the political equivalent of asymmetric play, where the perceived “madman” advantage keeps adversaries reactive, unable to coordinate effectively against him (Von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1944).
In the end, the Nobel Peace Prize is not awarded for dominance, negotiation, or spectacle. It recognises those who elevate humanity beyond division — individuals who pursue peace not as leverage, but as conviction. Donald Trump’s pattern of manufacturing crises, weaponising disinformation, and treating diplomacy as a contest of ego stands in direct contrast to that moral foundation.
And then he and his supporters wonder why he didn’t receive the Nobel Peace Prize.
About the author
J. André Faust examines the structural entanglements of politics, economics and society. He explores how single moments, from a lone act of violence to a policy choice, can unfold into decades of social and cultural change.
His approach treats reality like a layered 3D model. Systems overlap, interact and sometimes obscure one another. Forecasts are provisional; hidden layers and feedback loops are often still at work.
Guiding idea: understand connections, trace feedback and revise beliefs as new layers come into view.
References
- Al Jazeera. (2025). Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace plan: full text.
- AP News. (2019). Trump claims success in talks with North Korea despite lack of progress.
- BBC News. (2020). Trump says he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize but will never get it.
- CBC News. (2025). Trump’s remarks about Canadian fentanyl and immigrant “dog-eating” claims draw criticism.
- CNBC. (2020). Trump’s tariffs hurt American consumers, economists say.
- Financial Times. (2019). U.S.-China trade war: the real costs of Trump’s tariffs.
- Guardian. (2025). Trump’s use of indictments against Democrats raises fears of political retribution.
- Nash, J. (1950). Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 36(1), 48–49.
- PBS NewsHour. (2019). Trump’s meeting with Kim Jong-un: what did it achieve?
- PBS NewsHour. (2025). Trump’s 20-point proposal to end the Gaza war.
- Politico. (2025). Trump stokes outrage with false claims about immigrants and fentanyl.
- Reuters. (2020). Trump’s manufactured crises and self-claimed victories: a pattern of governance.
- Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press.
- Washington Post. (2024). Trump’s politics of chaos: creating disorder to claim control.
- New York Times. (2025). Trump’s domestic strategy: divide and dominate.