Norwegian Researchers Urge Pause in Nobel Peace Prize Amid Trump Pressure

Norwegian conflict researchers are calling for an unprecedented pause in the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize, warning that the current geopolitical climate has transformed the prestigious honour from a symbol of moral authority into a potential diplomatic flashpoint.

The appeal comes amid renewed controversy surrounding U.S. President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly claimed he deserves the Peace Prize for what he describes as major conflict resolutions achieved since returning to office. Trump has publicly complained that Norway, a NATO ally that brands itself as a “peace nation,” has deliberately denied him the award. He has reportedly raised the issue directly with Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, despite the government’s insistence that it has no influence over the Nobel Committee’s decisions.

In an opinion piece published in the Norwegian daily Aftenposten, Oslo-based scholars Kjetil Tronvoll and Henrik Wiig argue that the Peace Prize is increasingly exposed to retaliation from powerful states. What was once a form of Norwegian soft power, they say, now risks becoming a security concern. Their proposal is blunt: suspend the prize until Trump leaves the White House.

The researchers acknowledge that the Nobel Committee faces a difficult balancing act. Honouring Trump, they argue, would severely damage the credibility of the prize, while denying him risks provoking an unpredictable leader who has shown a willingness to weaponise trade and diplomacy over personal grievances. According to the scholars, recent decisions suggest the committee has struggled with political risk assessment in the past.

They point to the 2009 award to Barack Obama, given early in his presidency before concrete peace achievements had materialised, and the 2019 prize awarded to Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. Within months of receiving the honour, Ahmed launched a military offensive in the Tigray region that resulted in widespread civilian casualties. In both cases, the researchers argue, the committee underestimated how rapidly political realities can shift.

The current tensions, they say, illustrate how little insulation the Nobel Committee truly has from global power politics. While formally independent, the body is appointed by Norway’s parliament and reflects the political balance of the legislature. Its members include former politicians and experts, a structure that has long exposed the committee to external pressure.

Norway’s past experience with China is frequently cited as a cautionary tale. When jailed dissident Liu Xiaobo received the Peace Prize in 2010, Beijing responded with years of diplomatic freeze and economic pressure, particularly targeting Norwegian seafood exports. The standoff ended only after Norway issued a formal statement acknowledging that the award had damaged relations and pledging not to challenge China’s “core interests” in the future.

Tronvoll and Wiig warn that a similar confrontation with the United States could carry even greater consequences. They argue that Trump, if passed over again, could respond with punitive measures such as tariffs, turning the Nobel Prize into a trigger for economic retaliation.

For that reason, the scholars say they declined to nominate any candidate this year and urge the committee to consider doing the same. A temporary pause, they argue, would buy time for reflection and reform while removing the prize from an increasingly volatile geopolitical equation.

Whether the Nobel Committee will seriously consider suspending the award remains uncertain. But the debate itself highlights a growing concern in Oslo: in an era of transactional diplomacy and personalised power, even the world’s most prestigious peace prize may no longer be shielded from political pressure.