OSLO, Norway — The Norwegian Nobel Institute has pushed back against criticism from President Donald Trump regarding his exclusion from the Nobel Peace Prize, emphasizing a commitment to greater transparency in its selection process. In an interview published Sunday in The Atlantic, Institute Director Kristian Berg Harpviken outlined plans to demystify the award's deliberations amid accusations of bias from Trump and his allies. Harpviken, speaking from the institute's headquarters in Oslo, avoided naming the U.S. president directly, referring to him instead as the 'candidate in question.'
The Nobel Peace Prize, established by Alfred Nobel's 1895 will, has long been a symbol of global recognition for efforts in diplomacy, conflict resolution, and human rights. Awarded annually since 1901 by the Norwegian Nobel Committee — a body closely affiliated with the institute — the prize has honored figures from Mahatma Gandhi to Malala Yousafzai. However, its secretive nomination and selection procedures have often fueled speculation and controversy, particularly in recent years as high-profile politicians vie for the accolade.
Trump's frustration with the Nobel process dates back to his early days in office. In 2018, shortly after taking office, the president publicly lamented not receiving the prize, tweeting that he deserved it more than past winners like Barack Obama, who received it in 2009 for his efforts to strengthen international diplomacy. Trump has repeatedly highlighted his administration's role in brokering the Abraham Accords — normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab nations in 2020 — as qualifying achievements. Supporters, including White House officials at the time, argued that these deals deserved Nobel consideration, pointing to the historic nature of the pacts signed in Washington, D.C., on September 15, 2020.
Despite these claims, the Nobel Committee did not select Trump as a laureate. In 2020, the prize went to the World Food Programme for its work combating hunger amid global conflicts. Trump responded sharply on social media, calling the decision 'rigged' and accusing the committee of political motivations. According to reports from that period, the president told aides he was 'robbed' of the honor, a sentiment echoed by conservative commentators who labeled the process as elitist and anti-American.
Harpviken's interview with The Atlantic comes at a time when the institute is grappling with heightened scrutiny. The director explained that the Nobel Committee's deliberations are confidential for 50 years, a tradition meant to protect nominees and encourage candid discussions. Yet, this opacity has drawn fire from Trump, who in a 2021 rally in Ohio described the prize as a 'scam' controlled by 'left-wing Europeans.' Harpviken told the magazine, 'The strategy for clearing the air is simply to talk about it,' signaling an intent to engage the public more openly without breaching core secrecy rules.
While the institute's response stops short of addressing Trump's specific grievances, it underscores a broader effort to educate on the prize's criteria. Nominations, which close each January 31, can come from qualified individuals including academics, parliamentarians, and past laureates — over 300 are submitted annually. The committee, appointed by Norway's parliament, then deliberates in Oslo, often consulting international experts. Harpviken noted that misconceptions about the process, such as assumptions of U.S. favoritism or bias, have proliferated online, particularly among American audiences.
Trump's camp has not been silent in the face of the institute's statement. In a recent Fox News appearance, former Trump advisor Jason Miller dismissed Harpviken's comments as 'defensive posturing,' claiming the Nobel body remains out of touch with real-world diplomacy. Miller pointed to Trump's 2019 meeting with North Korea's Kim Jong Un at the demilitarized zone as a breakthrough overlooked by the committee. 'They gave it to Obama for doing nothing, but ignore actual peace deals,' Miller said, referencing the 2009 award to the then-president-elect.
Experts on international awards suggest that Trump's vocal complaints may inadvertently highlight the prize's independence. Geir Lundestad, a former director of the Nobel Institute who served from 1990 to 2014, has previously written that political figures often overestimate their chances based on short-term achievements. In his 2015 book Secretary of Peace, Lundestad detailed how the committee prioritizes long-term impact over immediate headlines, a philosophy that has guided selections like the 1971 award to Willy Brandt for Ostpolitik reconciliation in Europe.
The current controversy unfolds against a backdrop of evolving Nobel dynamics. In 2021, the prize went to journalists Maria Ressa and Dmitry Muratov for defending freedom of expression, a nod to press freedoms amid rising authoritarianism. Trump, who frequently clashed with media outlets, criticized that decision as well, tweeting from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida that the laureates were 'fake news peddlers.' Such reactions have amplified calls for reform within Norway, where public support for the prize remains strong but debates over inclusivity persist.
Harpviken's push for transparency includes plans for more public lectures and online resources from the Nobel Institute's Oslo center, which houses Alfred Nobel's will and artifacts from past ceremonies. The director emphasized that while the core process will remain shielded, explaining the rationale behind selections could counter narratives of partisanship. 'We want the masses to understand the institute's work,' he said, according to The Atlantic, in a rare glimpse into the body's self-reflection.
From the U.S. perspective, Trump's Nobel aspirations have become a rallying point for his base. At a campaign event in Appleton, Wisconsin, last month — just miles from this newspaper's offices — the former president joked about starting his own 'Trump Peace Prize,' drawing cheers from the crowd of over 5,000. Polling data from Pew Research in 2022 showed that 45% of Republicans believe Trump deserved the award for Middle East efforts, compared to only 12% of Democrats, illustrating deep partisan divides on the issue.
Norwegian officials, meanwhile, stress the prize's apolitical roots. Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, whose government appoints committee members, reiterated in a parliamentary address on Monday that the Nobel remains a beacon of impartiality. 'It's not about pleasing any one nation,' Støre said, according to Norwegian state media NRK. This stance aligns with Harpviken's approach, focusing on education rather than confrontation.
As the 2023 nomination deadline approaches on January 31, speculation already swirls about potential candidates, from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to climate activists. The institute's transparency initiative could influence how these discussions play out publicly, potentially reducing the sting of future rejections. For Trump, who has hinted at another White House run, the Nobel saga serves as both a grievance and a talking point, keeping the award in the American political spotlight.
Ultimately, the exchange between the Nobel Institute and Trump's circle highlights tensions between global institutions and populist leaders. While Harpviken's comments aim to bridge understanding, they may not quell the president's longstanding ire. As one Oslo-based analyst put it, the prize's prestige endures precisely because it stands apart from such pressures, a legacy Alfred Nobel envisioned over a century ago in his Paris-drafted will.
Looking ahead, the Nobel Committee will convene in Oslo this fall for its annual deliberations, with the winner announced on October 6. Whether increased openness from the institute sways public perception or invites more criticism remains to be seen, but for now, it marks a subtle shift in how one of the world's most coveted honors engages with its detractors.