Last week, the Nobel Committee announced the recipient of the 2025 Peace Prize. While President Trump was not the winner, he had expressed a strong desire for the honor and frequently discussed his candidacy for it.
Trump has argued—quite convincingly—that he has resolved multiple long-standing global political and military disputes. One of the gravest conflicts involved two nuclear nations, India and Pakistan. ( A historic breakthrough occurred in the Middle East, but that was after the Nobel decisions were made.)
The award went to Maria Corina Machado, a Venezuelan dissident bravely opposing the corrupt regimes of Nicolás Maduro and Hugo Chávez. Currently in hiding, her exclusion from the upcoming 2024 election has been confirmed by both election day records and independent international observers, which is understandably disappointing for Trump. However, it might be wise for him to hold back on any unfair accusations against the Nobel Committee or disrespect toward Machado.
Instead, we should celebrate her courageous battle against Venezuelan tyranny, something Trump himself has condemned. He might also want to reflect on his own stance. It’s an ideal moment for him to align himself with global figures advocating for human rights and democracy, much like other American presidents have done, including Trump during his campaigns in 2007 and 2008 when he criticized Kim Jong Un for oppressing the North Korean populace. As noted by The Wall Street Journal, doing the right thing could actually improve his chances in the next election.
Perhaps there’s some underlying resentment because Trump believes he was unfairly treated by the Nobel Prize committee, particularly when reflecting on how America’s first black president, Barack Obama, received the award just ten months into his presidency in 2007. Throughout the remainder of his time in office, Obama failed to enhance global peace, instead setting the stage for significant conflicts with serious threats.
For instance, President Obama tacitly allowed President Vladimir Putin to invade both Ukraine and Syria in 2012, stating he would show “more flexibility” after his reelection. He tolerated Putin’s actions in those regions and also accepted Xi Jinping’s assurances regarding non-militarization of artificial islands in the South China Sea, promises that were quickly broken. The acquiescence of the Obama-Biden administration to Russia and China’s expansionism, combined with Biden’s handling of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, has left the U.S. facing substantial risks.
Despite his critiques of Obama, Trump did little during his own first term to counter Putin’s 2014 takeover of Ukraine. After Biden succeeded him in 2021, he also accepted the ongoing Russian control of eastern Ukraine and Crimea. When Putin planned another invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Biden’s response was to eventually provide Ukraine with weapons and resources sufficient to prevent total collapse, yet insufficient to reclaim lost territory, resulting in a prolonged conflict that drags on into its fourth year.
Initially, in his current term, Trump followed Biden’s flawed, stagnant approach, putting U.S. arms transfers to Ukraine on hold twice—in defiance of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who stated “I don’t have a card” to fight back against Russia’s invasion.
Unexpectedly, on September 23rd, Trump reversed course and declared that a defensive approach alone wouldn’t work in military or political arenas. He proposed that Ukraine should strike deep into Russian territory, even shocking observers by stating that Ukraine could reclaim all occupied land—“and probably more.” Just days later, he indicated that the U.S. would exchange intelligence with Ukraine, considering requests for Tomahawk missiles capable of hitting targets deep in Russia.
However, almost three weeks later, the administration states it is still “considering” these changes, with no tangible actions taken to follow through on this significant policy shift. In the meantime, Ukraine remains cautious about retaliating, fearing potential repercussions from Trump and further escalating tensions with Russia, which has intensified its attacks, targeting power infrastructure as winter approaches—disrupting electricity and heating for many in Kyiv.
Despite promising changes, no Tomahawk missiles have been authorized for Ukraine as deadlines have passed without any approvals. A troubling thought is emerging: could it be that the Trump administration and Putin are collaborating to gain significant concessions from Ukraine, positioning Russia advantageously for future maneuvers? This could lead to serious implications for Ukraine as its struggles deepen.
If true, this would represent a severe betrayal of a wartime ally by an American president. Alternatively, Trump might simply have had another change of heart. Either way, the fallout—for both Ukraine and NATO countries—could be extremely serious.
Other nations like China, Iran, and North Korea are also observing the situation with concern, and except for Trump, it seems the Nobel Committee might not be swayed by his current approach to Ukraine unless he is prepared to label the Nobel Prize as a “peace at any cost” award.
Joseph Bosco previously served as the Director of China Affairs for the Secretary of Defense from 2005 to 2006 and was the Asia Pacific Director of Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief from 2009 to 2010. He is currently a non-resident fellow at the Institute for Korean American Studies, as well as a member of the advisory boards for the Global Taiwan Institute and the Vandenberg Coalition.
