While the public speculates, the world of peace research institutes provides a more academic and sober analysis of Nobel Peace Prize contenders. The view from these institutions, such as the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), is overwhelmingly skeptical of Donald Trump’s chances, grounding their predictions in data, historical precedent, and a deep understanding of the Nobel Committee’s character.
PRIO, for example, releases an annual shortlist of likely candidates. Trump has never been a serious feature on these lists, which tend to be populated by human rights activists, international courts, and disarmament advocates. The directors of these institutes, like Nina Græger of PRIO, are often quoted by the media because their analysis is considered credible and non-partisan.
Græger’s assessment that Trump’s chances are “a long shot” and that his rhetoric is not “peaceful” is indicative of the broader expert consensus. These analysts look at a candidate’s entire body of work. For Trump, they see the Abraham Accords, but they also see a pattern of behavior that runs counter to decades of peace research findings on what builds sustainable peace: multilateralism, trust-building, and respect for international law.
Theo Zenou, a historian at the Henry Jackson Society, echoes this academic perspective. His focus on the “durability” of peace and the need to address “root causes” reflects a standard peace studies framework. By this measure, Trump’s transactional, top-down diplomacy is seen as insufficient.
The insider’s view is not swayed by media hype or betting odds. It is based on a rigorous application of the principles of peace and conflict studies to the available candidates. From this vantage point, Donald Trump does not fit the profile of a laureate whose work has genuinely advanced the cause of global peace in a sustainable way.