The Nobel Peace Prize Should Go to Institutions Doing Quiet Peace-Building Work, Not Trump or Zelenskyy
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/haakon-gjerlow. "Donald Trump? Please no. Here’s who actually deserves this year’s Nobel peace prize | Haakon Gjerløw | The Guardian." September 28, 2026. www.theguardian.com
The Gist
The author argues that this year's Nobel Peace Prize should NOT go to Trump or Zelenskyy, despite betting markets favoring them, because Trump is fighting a war and Zelenskyy is a wartime leader. Instead, the prize should go to organizations doing the real, unglamorous work of peace—like international courts, journalists documenting war crimes, and humanitarian groups helping children and refugees.
Conclusion
The 2026 Nobel peace prize should be awarded to institutions and organizations doing the essential, unglamorous work of building peace (such as the ICJ, ICC, CPJ, Save the Children, and Sudan's Emergency Response Rooms) rather than to high-profile political figures like Donald Trump or Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Premises
- Donald Trump is disqualified because he is a sitting president waging war against Iran, and his record includes allegations of US war crimes, making him an impossible candidate for a peace-oriented prize.
- Volodymyr Zelenskyy is disqualified because awarding the prize to a sitting commander-in-chief of a country actively fighting a major war would effectively endorse one side in an ongoing conflict, conflicting with Nobel's will calling for 'fraternity between nations' and reduced armies.
- International courts like the ICJ and ICC do vital work enforcing the principle that international law applies even to powerful actors, which is under threat (e.g., US sanctions on ICC officials).
- Journalists, exemplified by CPJ members, provide essential evidence of war crimes and atrocities at great personal risk (132 journalists killed in 2025, the deadliest year on record), which is necessary for accountability and peace.
- Humanitarian organizations like Save the Children and Sudan's Emergency Response Rooms directly protect civilians and children in conflict zones, doing concrete peace-building work.
- International cooperative institutions like the International Space Station demonstrate that sustained peaceful collaboration between rivals is achievable and valuable, especially as global cooperation frameworks are strained.
- The record-breaking number of global conflicts in 2025 (65 state-based armed conflicts) makes it more important than ever to highlight and reward the institutions and mechanisms that actually build and sustain peace.
Assumptions
- The Nobel peace prize should be reserved for peace-building work broadly construed (institutions, legal enforcement, journalism, humanitarian aid) rather than diplomatic achievements by political leaders.
- Awarding the prize to a leader involved in active warfare (even in self-defense or peace negotiation) inherently compromises the prize's symbolic neutrality.
- The totality of a candidate's actions and associations (e.g., allegations against the broader administration) should count against them, even if specific diplomatic actions might be praiseworthy.
- Institutional and collective peace-building efforts are undervalued by the public and betting markets compared to individual political figures.
- The Nobel committee's choice carries symbolic power to shape global attention toward what matters for peace.
- Nobel's original will and intent (fraternity between nations, reduced armies) should guide contemporary interpretation of who deserves the prize.