Donald Trump insisted he should win the Nobel Prize while criticizing Obama.
Video clips of Donald Trump resurfacing online show him repeating a controversial claim: that he “ended eight wars” during his presidency. The remarks, originally made during a White House press briefing earlier this year, have reignited debate—especially as Trump contrasts his record with that of Barack Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize.
Now 79, Trump has long taken aim at Obama, 64, frequently criticizing both his leadership and his 2009 Nobel recognition. Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize less than nine months into his first term. At the time, the Norwegian Nobel Committee cited his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” highlighting his focus on nuclear nonproliferation and global engagement.
Trump, who has never received the prize, has repeatedly argued that his own foreign policy achievements deserve similar—or greater—recognition. Central to that argument is his assertion that he helped resolve or de-escalate multiple long-running conflicts, a claim that has been widely disputed by critics and foreign policy analysts.
In the resurfaced January footage, Trump states:
“Whether people like Trump or don’t like Trump, I settled eight wars. Big ones—some going on for 36 years, 32 years, 31 years, 28 years, 25 years. Some just getting ready to start, like India and Pakistan. I got it done in rapid order without nuclear weapons.”
He goes on to suggest that his actions merit the Nobel Prize, adding:
“I can’t think of anyone in history who should get the Nobel Prize more than me. And I don’t want to be bragging, but nobody else settled wars.”
Trump also renewed his criticism of Obama’s award, saying:
“Obama got the Nobel Prize—he had no idea why. He still has no idea. He walks around and says, ‘I got the Nobel Prize.’ Why did he get it? He got it almost immediately upon attaining office, and he didn’t do anything… he was a bad president.”
The former president concluded by arguing that major conflict resolution should be the primary benchmark for the prize:
“You should get the Nobel Prize for every war you stop—major wars. These were wars that nobody thought could be stopped.”
The reappearance of these comments has once again sparked discussion over Trump’s foreign policy legacy, the criteria for the Nobel Peace Prize, and the broader political rivalry between the two leaders.
In the same resurfaced remarks, Donald Trump went on to describe a conversation he claimed to have had with Vladimir Putin, using it to reinforce his argument about conflict resolution and recognition.
“President Putin called me,” Trump said, “and he told me about two of the wars he’d been trying to stop for 10 years. He wasn’t able to do it—he couldn’t believe it. So in theory, you should get the Nobel Prize for every war you stop. Every one of them was major.”
Despite repeatedly emphasizing his belief that his actions warranted the Nobel Peace Prize, Trump attempted to strike a more measured tone toward the end of his remarks, adding:
“But I don’t care about that. What I care about is saving lives. I’ve saved tens of millions of lives.”
The comments reflect a recurring theme in Trump’s rhetoric: positioning his foreign policy legacy as one centered on de-escalation and deal-making, while simultaneously expressing frustration at what he sees as a lack of international recognition.
Why hasn’t Trump received a Peace Prize?
Questions around why Trump has not been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize have been addressed by his allies, often with a political explanation. Steven Cheung, who has served as a spokesperson for Trump, previously argued that the decision ultimately comes down to bias within the Nobel selection process.
According to Cheung:
“The Nobel Committee proved they place politics over peace. President Trump will continue making peace deals around the world, ending wars, and saving lives. He has the heart of a humanitarian, and there will never be anyone like him who can move mountains with the sheer force of his will.”
Critics, however, continue to challenge both Trump’s claims about ending multiple wars and the broader narrative surrounding his eligibility for the prize, pointing out that Nobel Peace Prize decisions are made by an independent Norwegian committee and often reflect a wide range of diplomatic, humanitarian, and geopolitical considerations—not solely the cessation of conflicts.
The renewed circulation of these statements has once again fueled debate over what constitutes meaningful contributions to peace, and whether Trump’s record aligns with the standards historically recognized by the Nobel Committee.
Jørgen Watne Frydnes, who leads the committee responsible for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize, has previously addressed questions surrounding Donald Trump’s claims and the broader debate over how recipients are chosen.
Responding to suggestions that failing to award Trump the prize would be an insult to the United States, Frydnes made it clear that public pressure—whether through media attention or political campaigning—does not influence the committee’s decisions.
“In the long history of the Nobel Peace Prize,” he said, “this committee has seen many types of campaigns and waves of media attention. Every year, we receive thousands upon thousands of letters from people around the world, each arguing their own case for what constitutes peace, or who deserves recognition.”
He emphasized that such external noise ultimately carries little weight in the selection process. Instead, deliberations are grounded in a more enduring standard—one rooted in the principles set out by Alfred Nobel.
“This committee sits in a room surrounded by portraits of past laureates,” Frydnes continued, “and that room reflects both courage and integrity. Our responsibility is not to respond to pressure or popularity, but to remain faithful to the vision Alfred Nobel laid out. That is what guides every decision we make.”
Frydnes’ remarks underscore a key point often highlighted by Nobel officials: the prize is not awarded based on political stature, public visibility, or self-asserted achievements, but rather on a careful evaluation of contributions to peace, diplomacy, and humanitarian progress over time.
As debate continues around Trump’s claims and his supporters’ arguments, the committee’s stance reinforces its long-standing position—that recognition must come from demonstrable impact aligned with Nobel’s original intent, not from external advocacy or political momentum.
