What were the criteria for the Nobel Peace Prize nominations received by Donald Trump?
Executive summary
The formal criteria that governed the Nobel Peace Prize nominations for Donald Trump were the same universal nomination rules that apply to every candidate: a closed, committee-led selection process with a broad but specific class of eligible nominators and a 50-year secrecy rule [1] [2]. The publicly available rationales for Trump’s nominations came not from the Norwegian Nobel Committee but from the nominators themselves — who cited discrete diplomatic acts (Abraham Accords, brokered agreements, ceasefire efforts, regional pacts) and political messaging that they argued fit Alfred Nobel’s terms, even as commentators disputed whether those acts matched the will’s original wording [3] [2] [4].
1. Who can nominate — the technical gatekeepers and the secrecy rule
Nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize can be submitted only by a defined set of proposers — members of national parliaments and governments, current heads of state, university professors in certain fields, former laureates, judges of international courts and others — and those nominations are then evaluated by a five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee appointed by Norway’s parliament; the committee’s records and the official nominee lists are kept secret for 50 years, though nominators are free to disclose their own submissions publicly [1] [2] [5].
2. What nominators actually cited when putting forward Trump
Public letters and statements from Trump’s nominators framed his case around concrete diplomatic outcomes: nominations in 2018 and 2020 credited his role in the Abraham Accords, other proposers later praised efforts to broker ceasefires in Gaza and to mediate deals between Armenia and Azerbaijan and between Congo and Rwanda, and some supporters argued future security guarantees for Ukraine could strengthen his case — all claims that were advanced by nominators and political allies rather than the Nobel Committee itself [2] [3] [6] [7] [1].
3. How the committee’s criteria — and Alfred Nobel’s will — were invoked and contested
Nominators and defenders of Trump framed his diplomacy as advancing “fellowship between nations” and reducing armed conflict, the core phrase in Alfred Nobel’s will, but academics and commentators noted a debate over whether the specific episodes cited met the traditional interpretation of “the most or best work” for fraternity between nations or for reduction of standing armies; critics argued many of Trump’s actions fell short of that standard or were politically motivated, while supporters pointed to measurable accords and ceasefire efforts as evidence [4] [8].
4. Political context: who nominated him and why that matters
The map of public endorsements for Trump’s nomination included domestic lawmakers, allied foreign leaders and some governments — a mix that raised questions about motive and credibility, because several endorsing states were governed by authoritarian or embattled leaders whose advocacy could be read as geopolitical reciprocity rather than neutral judgment; Newsweek cataloged the geographic diversity of supporters and flagged authoritarian patrons among them, while U.S. congressional backers framed nominations as recognition of measurable diplomatic results [9] [6].
5. Limits of available evidence and the committee’s independence
Because the Nobel Committee keeps its deliberations confidential for decades, available evidence about why Trump appeared on nomination lists comes entirely from nominator letters, public statements and media reporting; the committee itself has repeatedly emphasized that virtually anyone can be awarded in practice but that the Committee alone makes the decision — meaning public rationales for nominations do not reveal what criteria the Committee prioritized internally [1] [5].
6. The bottom line: formal rules versus political argumentation
Formally, the criteria for Trump’s nominations were the neutral, eligibility and proposer rules that govern all Nobel peace nominations and the Committee’s internal deliberative mandate; substantively, the case advanced by nominators relied on specific diplomatic acts (Abraham Accords, regional agreements, ceasefire mediation and claims of security guarantees), while analysts and advocacy pieces contested whether those acts truly matched Alfred Nobel’s intent — a dispute played out in public because nominators disclosed their reasons even as the Committee’s private judgment remains sealed [1] [3] [4] [8].