U.S. Presidents to Win the Nobel Peace Prize

Four American presidents have won a Nobel Peace Prize. Can you name them?
They were not necessarily current presidents at the time of the award
Quiz by Quizmaster
Rate:
Last updated: November 26, 2018
First submittedNovember 26, 2018
Times taken10,602
Rating4.25
0:45
Enter answer here
0
 / 4 guessed
The quiz is paused. You have remaining.
Scoring
You scored / = %
This beats or equals % of test takers also scored 100%
The average score is
Your high score is
Your fastest time is
Keep scrolling down for answers and more stats ...
Year awarded
President
2009
Barack Obama
2002
Jimmy Carter
1919
Woodrow Wilson
1906
Theodore Roosevelt
+3
Level 84
Nov 26, 2018
In the list of quizzes, this one shows it as asking for presidents who have won the "Noble Peace Prize." I believe a spelling correction might be in order.
+1
Level 75
Nov 26, 2018
Yep
+6
Level ∞
Nov 26, 2018
Lol. Fixed. Someone should start a "Noble" Peace Prize.
+5
Level 71
Nov 27, 2018
I *highly* recommend checking out the Ignoble Prizes though!!!
+1
Level 82
Nov 27, 2018
easy
+20
Level 66
Nov 27, 2018
As much I liked the guy, Obama's prize was basically the He's-Not-George-Bush award. Giving a peace prize to the acting commander two Asian ground wars is a bit of a departure from what I would consider meeting the essential requirements of the award.
+5
Level 73
Nov 27, 2018
Pretty much none of these guys really deserved it to be honest. Maybe Roosevelt.
+15
Level 74
Nov 30, 2018
Tend to agree. Not certain about TR. Carter - probably though. Not only an actual 'good guy' but the Egypt/Israel peace deal was not only a big deal then but it lasted. PS when I say 'good guy' I don't mean 'good president'. He had too many domestic policy failures for that.
+2
Level 65
Dec 21, 2018
What about Wilson? I was surprised that he was the least guessed, too.
+4
Level 66
Dec 22, 2018
Well, I don't think Wilson should have won the award since he did enact many Jim Crow laws so... Yeah, it seems Teddy is the only one on their who earned it
+1
Level 67
Mar 22, 2021
Jimmy Carter 100% deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. He's accomplished more in his post-Presidential career than while he was President. The Carter Center has done tons in terms of supporting development, eradicating disease (look up "Guinea Worm" and you'll see what I mean), and overseeing elections in the developing world.

Roosevelt got it for helping end the Russo-Japanese War, which makes sense to me. Wilson wasn't great as a person, but he got it for making the League of Nations, which was a noble (no pun intended!) endeavor, even if it didn't really do much.

So yeah, I'd say most of them deserve it, just not Obama. Although at the very least, he deserves it more than Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat.

+3
Level 82
Dec 21, 2018
But he really nailed the whole not being Bush thing.
+6
Level 48
Nov 9, 2020
Maybe I should be nominated, I'm very good at not being George Bush.
+9
Level 30
Dec 24, 2018
The only problem is Bush and Obama are more alike than you believe. Both globalist shills, corporate loving authoritarians and warmongers. Obama was the biggest war spender of all time, with a budget of over 700 million. He waged war in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen. He waged proxy wars and drone strikes, destabilized Libya and Egypt. Whaaaat a peacemaker!
+2
Level 82
Dec 28, 2018
Mostly inaccurate oversimplification. But all presidents have to try and work within the system. Unless they're simply too stupid to figure out how like the current one.
+1
Level 86
Nov 27, 2018
with US president quizzes, if in doubt guess washington, lincoln or roosevelt
+1
Level 62
Nov 29, 2018
True.
+6
Level 71
Dec 19, 2018
And only get one right in this quiz. Although I think most people remember that Obama received this prize if for no other reason than it made the prize irrelevant.
+1
Level 65
Dec 21, 2018
Obama actually fit the criteria for receiving the peace prize better than many other recipients that most people would deem more "worthy". From the text of Nobel's will: "the person who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the establishment and promotion of peace congresses". When Obama was elected he started a reasonable dialogue with countries such as Iran, rather than warmongering dialogue.
+3
Level 63
Dec 21, 2018
And in response to that, terrorist organizations began to grow because of our reduced presence in the middle east. So, while he may have met the criteria, it came at a cost. The president has a duty to protect the United States from its enemies, which Obama neglected for political reasons. His responsibilities never included obtaining accolades. He simply followed through with a campaign promise whether it was good for the country or not.
+1
Level 74
Aug 27, 2021
dbyeti, so if that's the criteria, would it be reasonable that Trump would also qualify considering the middle east talks that were brokered under his presidency?
+7
Level 83
Dec 21, 2018
With Nobel Peace Prize quizzes, maybe don't guess Washington or Lincoln, since the prize was first awarded in 1901.
+1
Level 86
Oct 24, 2019
very true, some limiting of the options all helps. Just in case you have no other knowledge it helps. Just tried this quiz again and once again had the same one left.
+7
Level 63
Dec 21, 2018
There seems to be a strong correlation between winning a Nobel Prize and being a terrible president...
+2
Level 46
Dec 21, 2018
Care to elaborate?
+5
Level 32
Apr 17, 2019
Obama and Saudi Arabia started a genocide in Yemen that Trump continued. Obama was the first president to have a full presidency of war. He got the award before he did these things but Obama should not have gotten it
+5
Level 86
Apr 20, 2019
“Obama was the first president to have a full presidency of war.”

I don’t even know where to begin with that one...

+2
Level 67
Mar 22, 2021
I hate US support for the war in Yemen as much as the next guy... but insinuating Obama is genocidal? For one, the blockade and subsequent famine in Yemen doesn't really fit under the definition of genocide--Saudi Arabia and its allies aren't doing it to selectively kill off an ethnic/religious group, they're doing it to gain control and a military advantage over Yemen. Also, it's not as though the US is the main perpetrator of this, and the US has even tried to send aid through the blockade.

I'm not trying to let Obama or Trump off easy--both of them gave aid to a country that actively committed war crimes in Yemen, which is really not acceptable at all (although I am pleased with Biden's attempts to emphasize human rights in his foreign policy more, which includes ending support for the Saudi coalition). It's wrong to call either of them actively genocidal though.

+24
Level 81
Dec 21, 2018
If that was the case, then Trump would already have two.
+4
Level 67
Dec 21, 2018
I wish I could like this comment twice.
+4
Level 30
Dec 24, 2018
Meanwhile, Trump is bringing the troops home from Syria and making definite plans to get us out of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Trump is putting an end to this war bs. "It is not our job to replace regimes around the world."

+3
Level 71
Dec 21, 2018
This comment prompted me to look up a variety of presidential rankings. Jimmy tends to be ranked last of this group, in the 26-33 range, which could be considered terrible, but definitely not the other three. Seems he got the award mainly for the work he continued to do after his presidency, though the Egypt Israel peace deal was a factor.
+1
Level 49
Apr 17, 2019
He also signed the Panama Canal Treaty with Omar Torrijos, an under appreciated accomplishment that defused a major source of tension between the US and Latin America
+5
Level 63
Dec 21, 2018
The top priorities of the POTUS should always be those that benefit the United States of America. If a president can obtain peace while at the same time adequately protecting the US from its enemies, then I consider it a success. But, we have never had a president that can do both. Peace is a wonderful idea, but it will never be obtainable globally. Instead, we have to do what is necessary to protect the nation. If that means going to war, then sobeit. If it means tightening up border security, then sobeit. If it means enforcing laws that already exist, then sobeit.

I could care less if a president wins that prize. It isn't a measure of success as the president of the United States of America.

+1
Level 66
Dec 23, 2018
These presidents (except Carter) did that. But because they were good, moral men (a big part of the reason they won the prize), they enforced the laws without stomping their feet and inciting hatred toward other groups. Look at how many illegal immigrants were deported under Obama. It was a lot, and he prioritized deporting people with criminal records. The difference is that Obama is compassionate enough and smart enough to know that you can deport them without getting on television and railing about how terrible immigrants are, because that is likely to stir up bigotry and xenophobia (but of course this is just a guess. No president would actually behave so irresponsibly...). Smart people understand that protecting the US and exercising great leadership are the results of sound and thoughtful policies, not grandstanding and pandering to the lowest common denominator with trite and simplistic notions about "America First." And that is why these men are esteemed.
+1
Level 63
Dec 21, 2018
Just out of curiosity does anyone know why H.W. Bush didn't get one? While I don't support many of his domestic policies and campaign tactics, one would think overseeing the peaceful collapse of the Soviet Union and the reunification of Germany would make him a strong contender. Did Iran Contra, Panama, or something he did while at the CIA rule him out?
+1
Level 85
Dec 21, 2018
Gorbachev got one.
+1
Level 82
Dec 22, 2018
^ yeah Bush didn't really have much to do with it. Not saying that he wasn't a very capable leader when it came to negotiating foreign policy, but the Soviet Union was already on its way out.
+7
Level 49
Dec 21, 2018
Obama? Carter? Wilson? Just goes to show what a joke the Nobel Peace Prize is.
+5
Level 82
Dec 22, 2018
Carter won in 2002, many years after leaving office, and he has been working tirelessly the whole time since leaving office to promote peace and human development.

Wilson thought up the League of Nations, the forerunner of the United Nations.

Who do you think should have won?

+1
Level 66
Dec 22, 2018
*Insert Generic Republican Comment* I think Reagan or Kennedy should have got one
+1
Level 82
Dec 22, 2018
I sort of meant the same years that Wilson and Carter won. Were there better candidates those years?
+3
Level 66
Dec 23, 2018
Well in 2002 Reagan was still alive and for Wilson's 1919 prize, there really isn't any other presidential contender other than Teddy who already won, so I guess Wilson just shouldn't have got the prize in the first place
+1
Level 82
Dec 28, 2018
Was Reagan working as much as Carter after leaving office toward world peace? No. And you're saying that the prize should not have been awarded in 1919 because you dislike Wilson?
+3
Level 66
Dec 29, 2018
It's not that I just dislike Wilson, he was not a good person or president. He enacted many Jim Crow laws such as segregation in government workplaces while he was president.
+3
Level 82
Apr 17, 2019
It's no secret that Wilson was a racist, but he wasn't given the Nobel for his views on racial equity or for his achievements as US president, it was because he was the leading architect of the League of Nations, an organization dedicated to preserving world peace. He deserved it.
+3
Level 32
Apr 17, 2019
It is easy with the dates
+2
Level 52
May 22, 2020
Obama getting the prize makes no sense. He ramped up military spending, waged war in several Islamic Countries, and destabilized a few of them!
+4
Level 86
Oct 13, 2020
Well here's the thing. When it was announced that he had won the prize, EVERYBODY was shocked. It was in the fall of 2009, and he wasn't even a year into his first term. He hadn't done anything worthy of the prize at that point. But the bigger controversy was this: the final date for all nominations that year was 11 days after his inauguration. Even Obama said he didn't deserve it (though he accepted it nonetheless). In 2015 when asked, the Nobel Secretary said he deeply regretted giving the award to Obama.
+4
Level 48
Jan 7, 2021
To answer the question of who else should have won when someone received the prize, the award isn't necessarily given every year.

Agreed that Carter won for his post-presidential work. He has arguably had the most successful and beneficial post-presidency of any of the others.

+1
Level 72
Mar 16, 2021
A swerveball in there.