Looking back, it seemed obvious from the start that President Trump wouldn’t win the Nobel Peace Prize.
Yet, despite his unpopularity, he played a critical role.
His refusal to be considered highlights a flaw in the prize’s justification—that it is awarded to those who have “done the most or best in the cause of fraternity among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the holding and promotion of peace conferences.”
This criterion doesn’t quite capture the peace that Trump has fostered this year, particularly with significant resolutions to global conflicts, like the situation in Gaza.
Many lives could have been lost had he not stepped in personally, dispatching special envoys to mediate between Hamas and Israel.
The results speak for themselves, with a ceasefire in effect and many displaced Palestinians beginning to return to Gaza City.
The imminent release of hostages held by Hamas for two long years is set for tomorrow, a development that seemed nearly impossible until Trump leveraged his influence and America’s backing to help end the conflict.
He masterfully garnered support from the White House for Israel and other regional powers, including Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, creating a momentum that even the hardline Hamas found difficult to resist.
“Participation Trophy”
During his first term, Trump also made waves by forming the historic Abraham Accords.
This agreement enabled four Muslim countries to normalize relations with Israel, leading to trade and tourism that was celebrated in a dazzling ceremony at the White House.
The phrase “Kosher Food in Dubai,” which made headlines, highlighted the tangible benefits of overcoming historical barriers.
Unfortunately, it seems that genuine peace isn’t what the Norwegian Committee prioritizes or rewards.
After all, this was the same organization that awarded Barack Obama shortly after his inauguration, well before he had accomplished anything substantive.
There were no noticeable outcomes. It appears the decision-makers were more motivated by the racial symbolism that Obama represented and his international apology tour, during which he expressed remorse for America’s historical actions.
This year’s prize further illustrates the committee’s misguided belief that eloquent speech and discussion about peace are admirable qualities.
In that sense, they celebrated the troubling notion that people worldwide should expect only the “right” conversations from their leaders.
The Nobel Prize, as a result, has become akin to a participation trophy for those who mean well.
Interestingly, the use of force has become somewhat taboo—ironic, given that Alfred Nobel invented dynamite.
Even with his faults, Trump never wished for mere victory.
Though he is a compelling speaker with a straightforward style, he isn’t the type to indulge in the lofty, inspirational rhetoric favored by the global elite.
His America First mantra is bound to unnerve the Nobel Prize administrators, even as much of the world reaps the benefits of his use of American economic and military capabilities.
Additionally, he never pretends to concern himself with anything but real consequences—an attitude reflected in both his personal and political life.
He stands in stark contrast to this year’s awardee, Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Colina Machado.
Her stated reasons for receiving the award were “the promotion of democratic rights” and the “struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.”
There’s no arguing that her mission demands extraordinary courage and sacrifice, given the brutal nature of the Maduro regime.
Yet, without measurable results, the Nobel Prize risks becoming merely an acknowledgment of good intentions, rather than a recognition of tangible accomplishments envisioned by its founders.
The Sound of Reagan
It’s worth noting that when Machado accepted the prize, she dedicated it “to the suffering people of Venezuela and to President Trump, who has steadfastly supported our cause.”
Her view of Trump underscores the real-world consequences of his decisions to promote peace in Venezuela and beyond.
His methods echo Ronald Reagan’s philosophy of achieving “peace through strength.”
Reagan played a crucial role in bringing down the Berlin Wall and, eventually, in the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Even before taking office, Reagan’s vision for global peace didn’t call for compromise with detrimental regimes.
His views shocked the entrenched foreign policy establishment in the U.S. and Europe but were ultimately validated by the end of the Cold War: “We won and they lost.”
That’s precisely what transpired.
Since Trump emerged on the political landscape, he has exemplified those powerful beliefs more than any other president in recent history.
His first speech underscored the necessity for secure borders—an idea that garnered ridicule from various quarters but is now widely accepted, if not universally embraced.
Another illustration of his “peace through strength” philosophy can be found in comparing his stance on Iran with that of both Obama and Biden.
The latter two sought to draw Iran back into the fold through significant concessions, which ultimately undermined relationships with allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Starting with his first term, Trump shifted the paradigm by using American power to protect national interests, defeating the ISIS terror group that had been neglected by Obama.
He collaborated with Israel and Saudi Arabia to bolster defenses against Iranian threats and its proxies.
Notably, he took decisive action against Iranian terror leader Qassem Soleimani, signaling that America would no longer be viewed as a pushover.
“Peace through Power”
He kicked off his second term aiming for a settlement with Iran regarding its nuclear ambitions.
But after the regime twisted his efforts and persisted in threatening U.S. forces and allies, Trump followed through on military options, showing his resolve.
Imagine a scenario where Iran was allowed to build a nuclear arsenal, which they have openly declared would be aimed at destroying both Israel and America.
In that dire situation, millions could have perished, but Trump’s aggressive diplomacy has averted that outcome.
Next to this, the Nobel Prize seems more like an ornamental accolade.
