Why Trump Deserves the Nobel Peace Prize 2025: Is Peace a Single Winged Bird?
Peace, like a bird, requires two wings to soar—the wing of principle and the wing of results. What happens when the world only acknowledges one?
The Diplomatic Breakthrough: A 20-Point Roadmap for Peace
The centerpiece of President Trump's Nobel case is his comprehensive 20-point peace plan for Gaza, which represents the most significant breakthrough in the region in decades. This isn't merely a ceasefire proposal but a detailed roadmap for lasting transformation. The plan, which has been accepted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and is under negotiation with Hamas, addresses the conflict's root causes while providing immediate humanitarian relief .
What makes this plan revolutionary is its structural comprehensiveness. It begins with an immediate end to hostilities and the secure release of all hostages within 72 hours of acceptance . But it looks far beyond these urgent measures, establishing a framework for Gaza's future as "a deradicalized terror-free zone that does not pose a threat to its neighbours" while simultaneously launching "a Trump economic development plan to rebuild and energise Gaza" . This dual approach—addressing both security concerns and human development—demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of what sustainable peace requires.
Perhaps the most innovative element is the creation of a temporary transitional governance structure featuring a "Board of Peace" that will be chaired by Trump himself, alongside other world leaders including Former Prime Minister Tony Blair . This mechanism ensures international oversight while preparing Gaza for eventual self-governance. The plan further establishes an International Stabilisation Force to maintain security during the transition—a practical solution to the vacuum that often doom peace agreements .
Key Elements of Trump's 20-Point Gaza Peace Plan
The Chorus of Global Acclaim: International Leaders Weigh In
What distinguishes Trump's peace efforts from mere political posturing is the overwhelming international support they have garnered across traditional ideological divides. This isn't praise from usual allies alone but represents a genuine global consensus that transcends typical geopolitical factions.
From the Arab world, a joint statement from the foreign ministers of Qatar, Jordan, UAE, Indonesia, Pakistan, Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt welcomed "President Donald J. Trump's leadership and his sincere efforts to end the war in Gaza" and expressed "confidence in his ability to find a path to peace" . This endorsement from key Muslim nations, including those that have historically been critical of U.S. policy in the region, demonstrates the plan's diplomatic credibility.
European leaders, often skeptical of Trump's approach, have similarly voiced strong support. French President Emmanuel Macron stated he "welcomes President Trump's commitment to ending the war in Gaza and securing the release of all hostages," adding that "Hamas has no choice but to immediately release all hostages and follow this plan" . German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul noted that "The US peace plan for Gaza offers a unique opportunity to end the terrible war in Gaza" and expressed gratitude "to US President Donald Trump and his Administration for his intense efforts to end the war" .
Beyond Europe, leaders across the world have recognized the significance of this moment. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi welcomed "the comprehensive plan to end the Gaza conflict" as providing "a viable pathway to long term and sustainable peace" . Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba highlighted Trump's "leadership and efforts to end Gaza conflict," while Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney welcomed the "historic new Middle East peace plan" . This global recognition underscores how Trump's diplomacy has achieved what many thought impossible: building bridges across civilizations and interest groups toward a common peace agenda.
The Evolution of a Peacemaker: From Unilateralism to Multilateral Diplomacy
Critics who dismiss Trump's peace credentials based on his first-term approach are missing a crucial evolution in his diplomatic strategy. The president who once championed America First unilateralism has demonstrated a remarkable pragmatic adaptation in his second term, embracing the very multilateral engagement that peacemaking often requires.
This transformation is particularly evident in Trump's strategic partnership with Qatar. After Israel bombed Hamas leaders in Qatar last month, Trump dramatically changed course, personally directing Netanyahu to call Qatar's prime minister from the Oval Office to read an apology drafted by the White House . This wasn't merely damage control but reflected a sophisticated understanding that "Trump working with Arab partners, especially Qatar, has helped get things to this point" and that "He's changed the dynamics of what individual diplomacy looks like" . The shift has been so significant that Trump signed an executive order creating "a NATO-like security guarantee for Qatar, pledging that the U.S. would help defend it in the event of an attack" .
This diplomatic evolution extends beyond the Middle East. Trump's administration has engaged in shuttle diplomacy to de-escalate multiple global conflicts, with the president claiming to have "ended six wars" through interventions in conflicts between Israel and Iran, India and Pakistan, and Thailand and Cambodia, among others . While experts like Dr. Samir Puri of Chatham House suggest there's "a huge difference between getting fighting to stop in the short-term and resolving the root causes of the conflict," they acknowledge that within Trump's "absurdity" of claims "there are sometimes grains of truth" .
Republican allies on Capitol Hill point to this evolution as evidence of Trump's growth as a statesman. As Senator Lindsey Graham noted, "One of the biggest accomplishments of President Trump is to get the Arab world involved in dealing with the Palestinian issue" . This development represents a significant maturation from the unilateral instincts of his first term to a recognition that complex conflicts require coalition building and regional ownership of peace processes.
The Nobel Question: Achievement Versus Ideology
The Nobel Peace Prize has always existed at the intersection of idealistic vision and practical achievement. When examining Trump's case through this lens, we must ask: Should the prize recognize only those whose methods and ideologies align perfectly with conventional diplomatic norms, or should it also acknowledge those who achieve tangible breakthroughs toward peace, even through unconventional means?
The historical precedent for rewarding presidential peacemaking is well-established. Four U.S. presidents have received the Nobel Peace Prize: Theodore Roosevelt for mediating the Russo-Japanese War, Woodrow Wilson for his peace efforts after World War I, Jimmy Carter for decades of humanitarian work, and Barack Obama for "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy" . Trump's achievements—particularly his Gaza peace plan—arguably represent more concrete diplomatic breakthroughs than some previous recipients, notably Obama, who received the prize after less than a year in office based more on vision than accomplishment .
That said, legitimate questions remain about Trump's alignment with Nobel's criteria. The prize should go to whoever "has done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations," according to Nobel's will . Critics like Nina Graeger of the Peace Research Institute Oslo argue that Trump's withdrawal from international agreements and institutions "is not exactly what we think about when we think about a peaceful president or someone who really is interested in promoting peace" .
However, the Nobel committee has historically prioritized results over purity. The award to Henry Kissinger for the Vietnam peace agreement—however flawed—recognized the practical resolution of a devastating conflict. If Trump's Gaza plan leads to a lasting peace, even his critics must acknowledge its profound human benefits: an end to bloodshed, hostage reunification, and hope for millions trapped in cycles of violence.
The committee may also consider Trump's broader impact on global conflict resolution. His administration's work toward potential settlements in Ukraine, while less developed than the Gaza breakthrough, suggests a pattern of engagement in the world's most intractable conflicts . When we consider the sheer scale of human suffering these conflicts cause—and the potential for their resolution—the case for recognition becomes compelling regardless of ideological alignment.
Conclusion: Peace as a Single-Winged Bird?
The metaphor of peace as a single-winged bird reflects our current diplomatic dilemma. One wing represents the pure principles of peacemaking—the unwavering commitment to international norms, human rights, and diplomatic tradition. The other represents the practical achievements of peace—the messy, imperfect, but tangible resolutions that save lives and end suffering. A bird needs both wings to fly, yet we often privilege one over the other.
Donald Trump's Nobel Peace Prize case rests firmly on the second wing—the tangible results he has achieved. His 20-point Gaza peace plan represents the most significant breakthrough in one of the world's most intractable conflicts in generations. The broad international support it has garnered, from Arab capitals to European powers, demonstrates its diplomatic significance. His evolution from unilateral instinct to multilateral engagement reveals a learning curve that should inspire hope rather than skepticism.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee faces a fundamental question: Should the peace prize only recognize those whose methods and ideologies we find comfortable, or should it also acknowledge those who achieve historic breakthroughs through unconventional means? If the answer leans toward the latter, then Donald Trump's transformative peacemaking in 2025 makes him a deserving candidate.
Perhaps peace indeed has two wings—and for too long, we've been trying to fly with only one.
Article Credit : DeepSeek