The second year of Trump’s presidency promises to be as extraordinary as the first, and the Nobel context may well play a significant role in it, writes Valdai Club Programme Director Oleg Barabanov.
January 20 is a symbolically interesting date. US President Donald Trump has been in office for a year now. It’s time to take stock. In this year, he has accomplished (and some might say “wrecked”) more than many American presidents have accomplished in their entire terms. He has radically changed the parameters of global politics, breaking traditional intra-Western alliances.
February will bring another symbolic deadline. According to the Nobel Committee’s rules, nominations for this year’s Nobel Prizes must be submitted by the end of the month. Trump, however, was already nominated last fall by several countries for his peacekeeping efforts. Yet it appears he wished to add a ninth achievement to the “eight wars” he claims to have stopped—a jewel in his peacemaking crown—by securing peace in Ukraine. This desire could explain his recent repeated deadlines: ending the conflict by Christmas, then by January. Otherwise, he would miss the nomination window for Ukraine. It now seems unlikely this will happen by February, meaning the Ukrainian nomination, at minimum, will be deferred to next year.
Under normal circumstances, it is difficult to imagine the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarding Trump the Peace Prize. His biography, views, and statements are far removed from the liberal ideal that appears to significantly influence the committee’s decisions. In recent years, neither the far left nor the far right—nor even figures with illiberal episodes in their records—have received the Nobel Peace Prize, regardless of their concrete achievements. Echoes of this tendency were visible in the Russian context several years ago. Therefore, no matter his actions, Trump would likely never have been awarded the Nobel Prize in an ordinary political climate—even though, it must be acknowledged, he has accomplished considerable peacemaking work regarding the Middle East conflict. Had a Democratic US president achieved the same, a Nobel Prize would seem all but guaranteed.
The issue is that the current situation is extraordinarily unusual—another consequence of Trump’s first year in office. First, he is perhaps the only candidate who has so openly hinted at, even demanded, that the Nobel Peace Prize be awarded to him. The idea of a “Nobel for Trump” has already taken root in global discourse, serving as yet another dividing line between his supporters and opponents worldwide. On one hand, it is hard to imagine the Nobel Committee yielding to such overt pressure under normal conditions. On the other, the situation is, again, highly atypical. Given that winning the Nobel Peace Prize has become an apparent fixation for Trump, even in the West one occasionally hears voices suggesting he should finally be given the prize so that, perhaps, he might calm down—though that seems unlikely. Still, one of his possible narcissistic goals would be achieved.
Second, Trump is perhaps the only candidate in history whose psychological profile suggests he might seek “revenge” if denied the prize. In such a scenario, imposing additional tariffs on trade with Norway is entirely plausible, as is adding members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee to US sanctions lists—a precedent already set with officials of the International Criminal Court. Thus, the committee may face a choice between Norway’s undisturbed prosperity and the personal comfort of its members. Accustomed to a tranquil existence, they may, for the first time, find themselves personally accountable to an aggrieved hegemon. This constitutes an entirely different kind of pressure under which to make their decision. Will they withstand it? We shall see.
Pressure will also come from the opposite direction. Anti-Trump forces in Europe—and no less significantly, within the United States—will mobilize. Nobel Week, when laureates are announced, traditionally occurs in October. In early November, congressional elections will be held in the United States. Whether or not Trump receives the prize will undoubtedly play a major role in mobilizing public opinion ahead of the vote. If awarded, he becomes a globally recognized hero—a boost for the Republican Party. If denied, it offers a powerful rhetorical weapon for Democratic campaigns. His opponents would not hesitate to exploit such a refusal, and their ridicule of Trump would reach a new level.
There is another dimension to this Nobel story. The Norwegian committee must confront whether the Peace Prize can be awarded not only for peacemaking but also for military operations. Can it be given for a strike on Iran? In the liberal Western paradigm, Trump performed a good deed by damaging Iran’s nuclear program. Iran is routinely cast as a key adversary, part of the “axis of evil.” Yet it remains a military operation. Can the Peace Prize honour that?
A similar question applies to military action in Venezuela. From a liberal Western perspective, Trump likewise did good by freeing the Venezuelan people from a “usurper” and “tyrant.” But again, it is a military intervention. Can it merit a Nobel Peace Prize?
The most intriguing question, however, may not concern traditional Western adversaries like Iran or Venezuela. Should a Nobel Peace Prize be awarded over Greenland? It matters little whether Trump succeeds in annexing Greenland by the time of the award. European politicians would likely employ the same tactics used regarding Ukraine—delaying, obfuscating, and buying time. Regardless, should the prize be awarded for merely raising the issue? Will Nordic solidarity between Denmark and Norway hold? Or will Trump’s pressure prevail?
That said, one could argue Trump has already received his Nobel Prize. Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, as is known, donated her own Nobel medal to him. She framed the gesture eloquently, recalling how General Lafayette once gave Simón Bolívar a medal depicting George Washington as a symbol of American solidarity—and now Bolívar’s heirs were returning the gift. But will Trump be satisfied with that alone? The second year of his presidency promises to be as extraordinary as the first, and the Nobel context may well play a significant role in it.
