In early December 2025, the Trump administration officially rebranded the U.S. Institute of Peace, a congressionally created agency, with Trump’s name prominently displayed on its headquarters in Washington, D.C. The State Department described Trump as “the greatest dealmaker in our nation’s history” and said the renaming reflects his role in brokering peace agreements. The change coincided with Trump hosting leaders of Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo at the building for a U.S.-brokered peace deal.

For decades, the world has been told that peace is the product of institutions. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), the United States Institute of Peace, and countless other organizations have been funded with billions of taxpayer dollars, entrusted with the solemn responsibility of preventing war and fostering stability. Their headquarters stand as monuments to diplomacy, their budgets as proof of commitment. Yet when one looks closely at the record, the results are far less impressive than the rhetoric. These institutions have created the illusion of striving for peace, but they have rarely delivered it. They convene conferences, publish reports, and issue statements, but the citizens who suffer in war zones continue to die, displaced and forgotten, while the machinery of bureaucracy grinds on.

The contrast between this institutional inertia and the recent actions of President Donald Trump is striking. Since taking office in January 2025, Trump has pursued peace not through endless committees or abstract frameworks, but through direct negotiation. He has sat down with leaders, confronted the realities of conflict, and crafted agreements that tie peace to prosperity. In less than a year, he has claimed credit for multiple accords, eight with a ninth on the way, across the globe.

• Armenia & Azerbaijan — Peace agreement signed at the White House (Aug 2025).
• Democratic Republic of Congo & Rwanda — Treaty announced June 2025, credited to U.S. mediation.
• Iran & Israel — Trump announced a ceasefire after the U.S. joined Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites (June 2025).
• India & Pakistan — Ceasefire in May 2025 after U.S.-led talks; Trump threatened tariffs
• Cambodia & Thailand — Ceasefire July 2025 after border clashes; Trump pressured with trade threats.
• Israel & Hamas (Gaza) — Ceasefire agreement after two years of war; Trump’s 20‑point Gaza plan backed by UN.
• Ethiopia & Egypt (Nile Dam dispute) — Trump previously claimed to resolve tensions over Nile water rights.
• Serbia & Kosovo (economic normalization).

Whether one agrees with his methods or not, the tangible outcomes stand in stark relief against the decades of institutional stagnation.

To understand why this difference matters, one must first examine the role of NATO and the Institute of Peace. NATO was founded in 1949 as a collective defense alliance, designed to deter Soviet aggression and ensure that an attack on one member would be met with a response from all. Its existence has undoubtedly prevented direct war between major powers in Europe, and its deterrence posture remains a cornerstone of Western security. Yet NATO has never been a broker of peace treaties. Its budget—over $5 billion in common funding and over $1.6 trillion in collective defense spending—supports command structures, military readiness, and deterrence missions. It is a shield, not a negotiator. When conflicts erupt, NATO does not sit at the table to draft accords; it deploys forces to stabilize, to contain, to prevent escalation. That is valuable, but it is not resolution.

The United States Institute of Peace, created by Congress in 1984, was intended to complement this military deterrence with civilian expertise. Its mission was to prevent and resolve violent conflicts abroad through research, training, and dialogue. With a budget of around $61 million in 2025, it has trained thousands of peacebuilders and produced countless studies. Yet it has not directly resolved conflicts. Its role has been advisory, supportive, academic. When wars rage in Gaza, in the Caucasus, in Africa, the Institute does not broker treaties. It convenes workshops, publishes analyses, and supports local mediators. Again, valuable work, but not resolution.

This is the hypocrisy that many citizens see: vast sums of money spent on institutions that promise peace but deliver process. They create the illusion of striving for peace deals, but they never accomplish them. They talk, but they do not act. And in the meantime, ordinary people suffer and die. Families are displaced, children grow up in refugee camps, economies collapse under the weight of instability. The citizens of the world do not need more conferences; they need peace.

President Trump’s approach has been different. He has treated peace as a negotiation, not an abstraction. His template is pragmatic: tie peace to prosperity, use trade and investment as leverage, and bring wealthy and influential backers into the process. In Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, for example, the accord was not just about ending fighting; it was about mineral rights and economic cooperation. In Egypt and Ethiopia, the Nile River dispute was eased not by appeals to ideology, but by agreements on water usage tied to development projects. In Armenia and Azerbaijan, the South Caucasus accord was framed as a pathway to economic integration. These deals may be fragile, but they are tangible. They show that when leaders are confronted with the choice between endless war and profitable peace, money often tips the balance.

Critics argue that this transactional approach reduces peace to a commodity, that it ignores the deeper ideological and cultural roots of conflict. Yet history suggests otherwise. Ideology inflames wars, but economics often ends them. Nations may cling to beliefs, but they bend when survival or prosperity is at stake. The Marshal Plan rebuilt Europe not through ideology, but through investment. Trump’s template is not new; it is a continuation of a pragmatic tradition that recognizes that human instinct, no matter how strong ideology may be, is ultimately shaped by material realities.

What makes Trump’s recent actions notable is not just the deals themselves, but the speed and determination with which they were pursued. In less than a year, he has claimed more peace agreements than NATO and the Institute of Peace have produced in decades. He has focused not on abstract frameworks, but on the citizens who suffer. His rhetoric emphasizes the human cost of war—the families destroyed, the children killed, the economies shattered. He frames peace not as a gift to leaders, but as a necessity for ordinary people. This is why many supporters argue that he is not a fascist dictator, as critics claim, but a compassionate negotiator. Fascism thrives on chaos and perpetual conflict; Trump’s emphasis has been on peace, stability and prosperity.

Of course, one must acknowledge that these accords are fragile. Ceasefires can collapse, agreements can be violated, and economic promises can be broken. Peace is not secured by a signature alone. Yet the fact remains that tangible accords exist, and they were achieved through direct negotiation. That is more than can be said for the institutions that have consumed trillions without producing treaties. The citizens of the world may judge peace not by its durability, but by its existence. For those who have lived in war zones, even a fragile ceasefire can mean survival.

The broader lesson is that peace requires action, not just process. Institutions like NATO and the Institute of Peace are necessary scaffolding, but they cannot substitute for direct negotiation. They can deter, they can advise, they can support, but they cannot resolve. Resolution requires leaders willing to sit down, confront realities, and craft agreements that tie ideology to economics, conflict to prosperity. Trump has shown that this is possible, and he has done so in less than a year. Whether one agrees with his politics or not, the record speaks for itself.

Trump’s determination to seek peace, not just for world leaders but for ordinary people, has created a template that others may follow. It is a template rooted not in ideology alone, but in the recognition that money, trade, and prosperity are the levers that move nations. It is a template that has already produced results, however fragile, and it stands as a challenge to the institutions that have promised peace but delivered only process.

Image generated by AI.