At its best, the Nobel Peace Prize is an award that embodies hope. It shines a light on the people and movements that are working toward a better, more humane future, often against incredible odds. This inherently optimistic vision is a poor fit for Donald Trump’s political style, which is often animated by a sense of grievance, nostalgia, and a darker view of human affairs.
Think of the hopeful messages of past laureates. Malala Yousafzai, championing education for all girls. The World Food Programme, working to end hunger. Barack Obama’s 2009 prize, whatever its controversies, was explicitly awarded to inspire hope for a new era of multilateral engagement. The prize often bets on the promise of a brighter future.
Trump’s political message, in contrast, is frequently backward-looking and pessimistic. His slogan, “Make America Great Again,” suggests a yearning for a lost past. His rhetoric often focuses on enemies, threats, and a world where nations are locked in a zero-sum struggle for dominance. It is a politics of grievance, not of hope.
This is not just a matter of tone; it’s a fundamental difference in worldview. The Nobel Committee seeks to amplify voices that inspire humanity to overcome its divisions. Trump’s voice, critics argue, has often served to deepen those divisions, feeding a narrative of “us versus them.”
The committee is unlikely to bestow its ultimate symbol of hope upon a leader whose political project is so deeply rooted in a narrative of grievance and decline. They will almost certainly choose a laureate whose work, even in the darkest of circumstances, represents a flicker of optimism and a belief in the possibility of a more peaceful and united world.