In the world of the Nobel Peace Prize, words carry as much weight as deeds. While Donald Trump can point to the Abraham Accords as a significant diplomatic deed, experts argue that his voluminous record of divisive and confrontational rhetoric makes him an untenable choice for an award that celebrates peaceful dialogue.
The case for Trump is straightforward: in 2020, he achieved a concrete result by brokering normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab nations. His supporters argue that this action, a tangible contribution to regional stability, should be the sole basis for judgment. They contend that his unconventional style is irrelevant when measured against this success.
However, the Nobel Committee is not just rewarding a single transaction; it is endorsing a model for peacemaking. Nina Græger, director of the Peace Research Institute Oslo, made this clear when she stated, “His rhetoric does not point in a peaceful perspective.” This expert opinion reflects a broader view that a candidate’s language and its effect on the global climate of peace are integral to their evaluation.
Trump’s presidency was characterized by a rhetorical style that critics describe as nationalistic, belligerent, and aimed at deepening divisions. From threatening “fire and fury” to labeling political opponents as enemies, his words often created a climate of conflict rather than one of reconciliation. This stands in stark opposition to the language of past laureates like Nelson Mandela, whose words were instrumental in healing a divided nation.
The Nobel Prize seeks to honor those who build bridges, and bridge-building requires a language of empathy, respect, and understanding. Because Trump’s rhetoric so often did the opposite, the committee would face a contradiction in honoring him. They would be forced to ignore the words and focus only on the deed, a distinction the committee, dedicated to the holistic cause of peace, is unlikely to make.