Donald Trump’s presidency was marked by a rhetorical style that swung from threats of “fire and fury” to claims of being a master peacemaker. This volatile journey poses a problem for the Nobel Peace Prize committee, which values consistency and a demonstrable commitment to peaceful dialogue. Can a leader known for bellicose language be credibly rebranded as a Nobel laureate?
His supporters would argue yes, pointing to the Abraham Accords as proof that his unconventional methods work. They might say that his tough talk created the conditions for deals by showing strength and resolve. In this view, the peaceful outcome is what matters, not the rhetoric used along the way.
However, the Nobel committee is likely to see it differently. They believe that words matter, and that a leader’s rhetoric can either create a climate conducive to peace or one prone to conflict. Trump’s frequent attacks on allies, his praise for authoritarians, and his divisive language on domestic issues all contribute to a portfolio that experts say is not “peaceful.”
Nina Græger of the Peace Research Institute Oslo explicitly pointed to his rhetoric as a stumbling block. The committee looks for laureates who inspire cooperation and understanding through their words as well as their deeds. A track record of inflammatory language is a serious liability, as it undermines the very “fraternity between nations” the prize seeks to build.
While Trump may have shifted his tone to claim the mantle of peacemaker, the committee will look at his entire record. The memory of “fire and fury” and other confrontational moments will likely drown out his more recent claims of being a Nobel-worthy figure. For the committee, a true peacemaker’s journey is one of consistent bridge-building, not rhetorical whiplash.