An open letter: Why a Trump nomination is a ‘travesty’ of peace and of the Nobel Peace Prize?

To the Nobel committee,

The word “travesty” or its variation has appeared throughout the history of the Nobel Prizes, often in whispers or headlines surrounding contentious decisions. Of all award categories, the Nobel Peace Prize is most vulnerable to such criticism, not only because peace itself is difficult to quantify, but because the Peace Prize risks becoming politicized when awarded without rigorous ethical and objective scrutiny.

In that spirit, the recent nomination of Donald J. Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, reportedly supported by political leadership in Pakistan and Israel, deserves attention. Is this merely a “travesty of peace,” as some have called past diplomatic failures? Or would awarding him the Prize constitute a deeper violation—a travesty of the Nobel Peace Prize itself?

I believe it is both, despite CNN commentator Scott Jennings’ stated view (July 15) that “it would be a travesty if Trump does not get a Nobel Peace Prize for his war efforts[1].” Jennings argues that Trump is at least talking and trying to broker peace in the Middle East and the Russia-Ukraine war.

The mischaracterization of Trump’s role in global peace efforts

1. Middle East peace and the “Deal of the Century”

During his first term, Trump’s Middle East peace plan, branded as the “Deal of the Century,” was neither comprehensive nor inclusive. It was dismissed by Palestinian leadership and global observers as biased and unsustainable. While the Abraham Accords—normalizing relations between Israel and several Arab states—marked a diplomatic breakthrough, they sidestepped the core Israel–Palestine conflict and failed to address Palestinian sovereignty.

Notably, Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital—without consultation with the Palestinian authorities—undermined the possibility of a balanced peace. Palestinian scholar and spokesperson Hanan Ashrawi, in a 2018 lecture titled Power Politics and the Travesty of Peace at Boston College, captured the sentiment well: “You cannot superimpose power over justice and call it peace[2].”

Recent reports also indicate that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nominated Trump following US strikes on Iranian-linked military infrastructure. While these may be framed as deterrence, such military actions are hardly symbolic of peacebuilding. If military aggression is repackaged as diplomacy, we risk rendering the Nobel Peace Prize meaningless.

2. The Russia–Ukraine conflict

Trump has claimed he could resolve the Russia–Ukraine war “in 24 hours.” Yet his talks with Vladimir Putin lacked transparency and failed to yield any meaningful de-escalation. True peace requires diplomacy, trust-building, and multilateralism—qualities absent in Trump’s transactional worldview. As of this writing, US and NATO support for Ukraine remains grounded in deterrence, rather than reconciliation, and there is no evidence that Trump’s engagement has advanced a durable peace. Tensions have only escalated.

3. False claims on India–Pakistan mediation

Trump claimed that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi asked him to mediate the India–Pakistan conflict over Kashmir. However, this claim was flatly denied by India’s Ministry of External Affairs. Such fabrications undermine international credibility and peace-building efforts.

Past precedents of “travesty” applied to the Nobel itself

• Marie Curie (1903): Initially excluded as a woman from the 1903 Nobel Prize in Physics despite co-discovering radioactivity, Marie Curie was only included after her husband, Pierre Curie, insisted her omission would be a “travesty.” This act of integrity, alongside support from a progressive (woman) member of the Nobel Committee, corrected a near injustice and remains a milestone in Nobel history. (The author learned of this when he wrote about the bias and underrepresentation of women in Nobel laureates[3])
• Barack Obama (2009): Awarded the Peace Prize just nine months into office, Obama himself expressed surprise. The New York Times called it a “stunning surprise,” and critics noted that nominations had closed only 12 days after he assumed office. What meaningful peace work could be evaluated in such a short time?
• Henry Kissinger and Lê Đức Thọ (1973): Their award for negotiating the Paris Peace Accords during the Vietnam War was widely condemned. Satirist Tom Lehrer famously quipped, “Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.” Some even dubbed it the “Nobel War Prize.”
• António Egas Moniz (1949): Honored for developing prefrontal lobotomy, Moniz’s recognition has become one of the most controversial in Nobel history. The procedure is now considered unethical and has been widely abandoned, illustrating a premature recognition.
• Overlooked Gandhi: The greatest apostle of nonviolence, Mahatma Gandhi, was never awarded the Peace Prize. His omission—widely attributed to political and timing factors—is regarded as one of the Nobel Committee’s most glaring failures.

Returning to Trump’s Nomination

The Trump nomination threatens the essence and prestige of the Nobel Peace Prize, transforming it from a symbol of moral courage into a tool of political theater. His record is not one of diplomacy, de-escalation, dialogue, or coalition-building, but rather one of deal-making, igniting trade wars, and withdrawing from multilateral accords such as the Paris Climate Agreement and the Iran Nuclear Deal.

To offer Trump this honor would stain the legacy of the Prize and diminish the hope it inspires in activists, diplomats, and citizens globally who work quietly and tirelessly for peace.

The Nobel Peace Prize must remain a beacon of conscience in a world increasingly fragmented and polarized. It must resist the temptations of celebrity, political expediency, or self-serving. If the bar is lowered to accommodate undue influences, we will have redefined peace as the mere absence of war rather than the presence of justice.

The Nobel Committee owes it to the global community to uphold an ethical and objective lens—one that honors not power, but peace; not politics, but principle. The Nobel Peace Prize belongs to those who labor daily, often invisibly, for peace, not those who posture for it.

Respectfully,

A concerned global citizen

Note:
1. Text in Blue points to additional data on the topic.
2. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of PGurus.
3. The author acknowledges the use of ChatGPT in researching topics and the meaningful improvement of content.

Reference:

[1] CNN’s Scott Jennings says it’s a ‘travesty’ if Trump doesn’t get a Nobel Peace prize – Jul 15, 2025, Daily Express US

[2] Ashrawi calls for international community’s intervention to protect Palestinian people – Apr 14, 2018, WAFA

[3] MISSING NOBEL WOMEN SCIENTISTS: A JOURNEY OF BIAS IN TIME Oct 16, 2018, Scientist Foundation

For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.

The post An open letter: Why a Trump nomination is a ‘travesty’ of peace and of the Nobel Peace Prize? appeared first on PGurus.