The question surrounding this year’s Nobel Peace Prize may not be simply who deserves the honour. It may also be about something more uncomfortable: who can receive it without becoming entangled in Donald Trump’s political orbit?
Experts cited by Reuters say Trump is unlikely to receive the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize while the United States remains engaged in war with Iran. Yet his presence could still loom over the decision when the five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee announces the winner on October 9.
That possibility is rooted partly in what happened last year.
Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado received the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize after Trump had repeatedly campaigned publicly for the honour. Weeks later, Machado handed her Nobel medal to Trump in an effort to secure his backing for her democratic ambitions in Venezuela.
For Haakon Gjerloew, acting director of the Peace Research Institute Oslo, that extraordinary episode could influence the committee’s thinking this year.
The dilemma is straightforward but politically delicate: could choosing a particular laureate expose that person or organisation to pressure from the Trump administration?
Gjerloew told Reuters that the committee may consider whether an award could ultimately “do more harm than good.”
That calculation potentially opens the door to candidates whose work is rooted in institutions or principles that exist beyond any single government.
Among the names and organisations discussed by experts are Pope Leo, the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice and UN special rapporteur Francesca Albanese. Pope Leo, the first US-born pope, has criticised the war with Iran and advocated dialogue and peaceful conflict resolution.
But there is another possible direction.
Rather than choosing a figure likely to provoke a confrontation with Washington, the committee could opt for a less politically explosive recipient. Experts have pointed to Sudan’s Emergency Response Rooms, a network of community groups delivering assistance during the country’s civil war, and Save the Children as possible examples.
Either way, the decision carries significance beyond the gold medal and prize money.
Historian Oeivind Stenersen argues that the committee is also confronting a broader question about international law, human rights and liberal democracy at a time when established international institutions are facing challenges from the Trump administration.
That creates an unusual backdrop for the 2026 prize.
The committee can choose a laureate who keeps the temperature low—or one whose selection inevitably sends a stronger message about the international order.
And that may be the central irony of this year’s Nobel debate:
Trump may not be the person receiving the Peace Prize, but his influence could become part of the story of whoever does.
The winner will be announced on October 9.
