Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories
USA Presidential voters on electoral college map

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Federalism at Its Best

​People arrive at a polling location on the first day of early voting in Texas

Early voting records should scare GOP

​Border patrol SUV

How Border Policies Are Reshaping South Texas Politics

Five men sitting on one side of a table, as a panel at an event.

Congressional Inaction Raises Constitutional Change Alternative

Man holding American flag

This Is What Makes America Great

Does Donald Trump Deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?

News

Does Donald Trump Deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?

Oleksandra Matviichuk, head of the Center for Civil Liberties, holds the Nobel medal at the Kyiv railway station on December 18, 2022 in Kyiv, Ukraine.

(Photo by Yevhenii Zavhorodnii/Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images)
Hugo Balta
By Hugo BaltaAug 01, 2025
Hugo Balta
Hugo Balta is a journalist, educator, and communicator. Hugo is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and a board member of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund, the parent organization of The Fulcrum. He is the publisher of the Latino News Network, a trainer with the Solutions Journalism Network, and an adjunct professor teaching journalism courses.
See More Writings by author

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt sparked widespread debate Thursday by calling for President Donald Trump to receive a Nobel Peace Prize.

Leavitt asserted that Trump merits the prestigious recognition, citing his role in negotiating peace deals and ceasefire agreements across six major international conflicts. However, the wars in Ukraine and the Gaza Strip are still ongoing.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Trump last month that he recommended him for the award, handing the American leader the letter he said he sent to the Nobel committee.

Stopping Iran’s Nuclear Program

U.S. officials have long labeled Iran as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. In June 2025, intelligence reports suggested Iran was accelerating efforts to develop nuclear weapons. In response, Trump authorized targeted U.S. airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities, which were described as “totally obliterated”. The strikes were followed by stern warnings against retaliation, and while Iran did launch a limited strike on a U.S. base in Qatar, no casualties were reported.

Supporters argue that Trump’s decisive action:

  • Prevented Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
  • Averted a potential regional arms race.
  • Reinforced U.S. deterrence without triggering full-scale war.

Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) cited these actions in his formal nomination letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, praising Trump’s “bold, decisive actions to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions”.

Brokering Peace Between Iran and Israel

Just days after the strikes, Trump announced a ceasefire agreement between Iran and Israel, ending weeks of open conflict that had threatened to engulf the Middle East. The ceasefire, brokered with U.S. involvement, was hailed as “extraordinary” by commentators and foreign leaders alike.

Netanyahu called Trump “a peacemaker in one country and one region after the other”. The ceasefire remains intact, despite early skepticism about its durability.

A Broader Peace Agenda

Trump’s recent efforts build on his earlier diplomatic initiatives:

  • The Abraham Accords (2020), which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab nations.
  • De-escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan.
  • Attempts to mediate ceasefires in Ukraine and Gaza.

While critics question the sustainability and motives behind these deals, proponents argue that Trump’s “peace through strength” doctrine has yielded tangible results in some of the world’s most volatile regions.

A Divisive but Impactful Nomination

Trump has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize multiple times, but has never won. This year, however, his candidacy has gained traction, with endorsements from lawmakers, tribal nations, and foreign governments, including Pakistan.

Critics across the political and academic spectrum are voicing strong opposition, questioning both the merit and motivations behind the endorsements.

"Nominating Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize is like entering a hyena in a dog show,” said Emma Shortis, a senior fellow at RMIT University, in a panel of experts convened by The Independent. “There is no peace in Gaza, and Trump’s approach to diplomacy is transactional, not transformative.”

Even some who initially nominated him—like Ukrainian MP Oleksandr Merezhko—have withdrawn support, citing inconsistency and a lack of genuine commitment to peace.

Betting markets reflect the controversy. While Trump remains a top contender with odds as high as 32% according to some sportsbooks, critics argue that the surge in support is politically driven rather than based on substantive peacebuilding.

Nobel Peace Prize Criteria

According to Alfred Nobel’s will and the Nobel Committee’s interpretation, the Peace Prize is awarded to individuals or organizations that have made:

  • Fraternity between nations
  • Abolition or reduction of standing armies
  • Promotion of peace congresses

Over time, these have expanded to include:

  • Human rights advocacy
  • Diplomatic negotiation
  • Humanitarian work
  • Efforts toward nuclear disarmament

So while Trump’s name is in the mix, whether he “deserves” the prize is a deeply polarizing question.

Whether or not the Nobel Committee awards him the prize, Trump’s actions have reignited debate over what constitutes peace in the modern era. Is it diplomacy alone, or can military deterrence and strategic pressure also qualify?

Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum, and the publisher of the Latino News Network.


Latest news

US Senate candidate Dan Osborn
Elections

7 Independent Campaigns to Watch in the Final Days of the Midterms

​Patriotic paper ballot featuring red and blue stripes with the word vote
Elections

The First Amendment Does Not Belong to Political Parties

President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media
Governance & Legislation

Trump’s Arch Plan Defies Law and Warps D.C.’s Historic Core

Side view of young African American male voter filling in ballot
Electoral Reforms

Radical Reconstruction: Looking to the Past To Move Forward

Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026