With Donald Trump, politics is a show for which he writes the script each morning. Since his return, the 47th president has confirmed his reputation: expect anything, and especially the opposite. Between rambling statements from an Oval Office that looks more like a reality TV studio, and his tweets unleashed from his personal social network – a fortress without contradiction – the style is unique. Tweets that, in their subtlety, are reminiscent of the flatulence of our Corsican donkeys after a meal too rich in maquis herbs.

In this climate, the question posed by Hedy Belhassine about Trump’s chances for the Nobel Peace Prize seemed surreal. The reaction from the Norwegian committee, a glacial and unequivocal statement, was not long in coming. However, a few days later, the imposing nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford was parading in the Norwegian Sea.[*] Should we see a cause-and-effect relationship here? A dozen readers have contacted us about this « coincidence. » The question deserved to be examined. Here is our analysis.

Deterrence in the High North and the Quest for the Nobel: An Analysis of the Constants of American Power

by Joël-François Dumont — Paris, August 28, 2025 —

Introduction: Deconstructing a Hypothesis and Redefining the Problem

Is there a direct causal link between a decision attributed to Donald Trump—the deployment of the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford to the Norwegian Sea—and a psychological motivation—a « phobia » of the Nobel Peace Prize? A rigorous analysis of the facts is necessary.

First, attributing this decision to the president is incorrect. The deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group to the Norwegian Sea in the High North took place in May and June 2023.[01][02][03] At that time, the President of the United States was Joe Biden. Donald Trump, although he presided over the ship’s commissioning ceremony in July 2017, was no longer in office and therefore could not have ordered this specific movement.[04][05] The carrier’s first operational deployment, moreover, only took place in the fall of 2022[04]

Second, the nature of Donald Trump’s ambition is mischaracterized. Is the term « phobia » the most appropriate? All his statements demonstrate an active, even obsessive, quest to obtain the Nobel Peace Prize.[06][07][08] Trump considers this award a recognition he is owed, comparing himself favorably to his predecessor Barack Obama and seeing it as the ultimate validation of his unique diplomatic approach.[06][09]

Once this direct causal link is invalidated, a deeper and more relevant analytical question emerges. Beyond presidential personalities and their distinct styles, are there continuities in America’s power strategy?[*]

Are the deployment of the Gerald R. Ford under the Biden administration and the « Peace Through Strength » doctrine advocated by Donald Trump, in reality, two different manifestations of the same foreign policy paradigm—one based on demonstrating military superiority as the primary diplomatic tool? We will attempt to explore this issue by first analyzing the strategic context of this naval deployment, then the logic of the Trump doctrine, before highlighting the fundamental convergences and divergences in American power politics.

I – The Deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford in the High North: A Show of Force in a Context of Heightened Tensions

The deployment of America’s most modern aircraft carrier to Arctic waters in 2023 was not a mere courtesy visit. It was a carefully planned military operation, part of a broader NATO strategy aimed at responding to the evolving geopolitical landscape in the High North.

Chronology of a Strategic Mission (May-June 2023)

The mission of the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) Carrier Strike Group (CSG) followed a precise timeline, with each step carrying strategic significance. The ship, presented as the U.S. Navy’s newest and most advanced and representing a « generational leap » in power projection capability, left its homeport of Norfolk for a scheduled deployment in the U.S. European Command (EUCOM) area of responsibility.[02][03][10]

The port call in Oslo, beginning on May 24, 2023, was a high point of this deployment. It was the first visit by a U.S. aircraft carrier to Norway in over 65 years, a highly symbolic event that received extensive media coverage and was marked by official receptions underscoring its diplomatic importance.[02][03][11]

After this stop, the carrier strike group began the most operational phase of its mission. In early June 2023, it conducted operations in the Norwegian Sea and sailed into the High North, coming under direct NATO command on June 5.[01][12] This phase coincided with the start of the Arctic Challenge Exercise on May 29, a series of large-scale air maneuvers involving nearly 150 aircraft from 14 allied nations.[13]

Table 1: Detailed Chronology of the USS Gerald R. Ford Deployment (May-June 2023)

Date	Event	Location	Significance
May 24, 2023	Arrival in the Oslofjord	Oslo, Norway	First visit by a U.S. carrier in 65 years, symbolizing strengthened bilateral ties.[02][03]
May 29, 2023	Start of Arctic Challenge Exercise	High North	Joint air maneuvers with 14 countries, demonstrating the Alliance’s large-scale operational capability.[13]
June 3, 2023	Air operations (helicopter launches/recoveries)	Norwegian Sea	Demonstration of the carrier strike group’s operational capabilities in a demanding Arctic environment.[12]
June 5, 2023	Transfer of the carrier strike group to NATO command	High North	Illustration of the Alliance’s ability to integrate the most advanced U.S. military assets into its command structure.[01]

The Official Rationale: Interoperability and Reassurance within NATO

Official communications from the U.S. Navy and NATO presented this deployment under the triple banner of partnership, interoperability, and reassurance. The visit aimed to strengthen collaboration with Norway, an ally deemed strategic for the security of the Arctic and the North Atlantic.[03]

The main objective was to train alongside NATO forces to refine common tactics, techniques, and procedures, thereby increasing the Alliance’s interoperability.[03][11] The fact that the carrier strike group sailed with Standing NATO Maritime Group One and that its command was temporarily transferred to NATO illustrates this commitment to deep integration.[01][11]

Finally, the mission carried a strong political message of cohesion and security guarantees. Norwegian Minister of Defence Bjørn Arild Gram himself called the visit a « clear expression of the security guarantees we have through NATO. »[03][11] In a context of renewed tensions in Europe, it was about reassuring allies, particularly those on the northern flank, of the United States’ unwavering commitment to collective defense.

Geopolitical Imperatives: Containing Russia in the Arctic

Beyond the official justifications, the deployment of the Gerald R. Ford responded to pressing geopolitical imperatives, mainly related to Russia’s posture. Since the end of the Cold War, the Arctic, once a demilitarized zone of cooperation, has been the subject of massive military reinvestment by Moscow.[14] Russian authorities no longer view this space as a diplomatic issue but primarily as a military theater, deploying new naval units and reactivating old bases.[14][15]

This remilitarization is explained by the region’s growing strategic importance. Melting ice, a consequence of climate change, is opening new maritime routes, notably the « Northern Sea Route, » and providing access to immense natural resources. Control of these new « choke points » has become a major power issue, a priority for Russia but also for China, which seeks to project its influence there.[15][16][17]

In this context, sending the world’s most powerful aircraft carrier to the region is an unequivocal act of deterrence aimed at Moscow. This is not a simple visit, but the culmination of a strategic NATO pivot toward the High North. Breaking a 65-year status quo signals a fundamental reassessment of the region’s importance. The Gerald R. Ford‘s deployment is the most visible manifestation of a new Alliance defense doctrine that identifies its northern flank as a potential area of confrontation.

Furthermore, the specific choice of the USS Gerald R. Ford is itself a message. By deploying its most modern naval asset, Washington is not just showing its presence; it is highlighting a technological and capability gap with the Russian navy, whose sole aircraft carrier is aging. This demonstration of superiority aims to complicate Russia’s strategic calculus and reinforce the credibility of NATO’s deterrence, creating what analysts call a « security dilemma, » where each side’s reinforcement is perceived as a threat by the other.[14]

II: The Trump Doctrine: Between « Peace Through Strength » and the Nobel Obsession

Donald Trump’s foreign policy, often summarized by the slogan « America First, » is based on a distinct philosophy—a mix of shows of force, a transactional view of international relations, and a personal quest for prestige, embodied by his desire to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Defining « Peace Through Strength »: A Transactional Approach to Power

The Trump doctrine is often described as a « balancing act » that is neither purely isolationist nor openly interventionist.[18] It rejects the prolonged and costly military engagements (« protracted war ») that characterized post-9/11 U.S. policy, but it avoids the total withdrawal advocated by strict isolationism.[18][19]

At the heart of this doctrine is a targeted and surgical use of military force. American power is not a tool for building a world order, but a lever used to achieve « narrow, achievable, and precisely defined » objectives.[18] It involves demonstrations of force, whether military or economic (through tariffs), aimed at creating an overwhelming power imbalance even before negotiations begin.

This approach is accompanied by an unapologetic unilateralism. Trump’s vision of international relations is that of a zero-sum game, where multilateralism and international institutions are seen as hindrances and burdens.[18] Alliances are not judged by shared values, but by their immediate « strategic utility. »[18][20] The goal is not « burden-sharing » but outright « burden-shifting » to allies, who are ordered to pay for their own security under threat of having the U.S. guarantee questioned.[21]

The Nobel Prize as the Ultimate Validation Tool

This worldview is inextricably linked to a personal ambition: winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Donald Trump openly expresses his desire for this award, complaining of unfair treatment and believing his diplomatic successes amply deserve it.[06][07] This quest is fueled by an obvious rivalry with Barack Obama and a deep need for legitimation on the international stage.[08][22]

To justify his candidacy, he highlights a series of peace « deals » and ceasefires he claims to have personally negotiated.[06] The list includes the Abraham Accords normalizing relations between Israel and several Arab countries, as well as allegedly successful mediations between Serbia and Kosovo, India and Pakistan, and Armenia and Azerbaijan.[06][08][23] He relies on the support of international leaders, like Benjamin Netanyahu, who nominate him, often in a transactional logic aimed at gaining favor with Washington.[06][08][09]

This quest is not mere vanity, but a strategic objective. The liberal international order, which Trump despises, is based on multilateralism and diplomacy, of which the Nobel Prize is the quintessential symbol. By seeking this prize, Trump does not aim to join the consensus, but to co-opt it. He wants to appropriate the most prestigious symbol of the existing order to prove that his anti-liberal method—unilateral and transactional—is superior. Winning the Nobel would not only be a personal victory but the ideological validation of his break with American diplomatic tradition.

The Doctrine’s Paradox: Using Threats to Negotiate « Peace »

The « Peace Through Strength » doctrine rests on a fundamental paradox: using the threat of war to achieve a peace defined on its own terms.[24] Military force and economic pressure are the levers that bring adversaries to the negotiating table.[19][22]

However, a closer analysis of his diplomatic « successes » reveals that what Trump calls « peace » often amounts to a simple « cessation of hostilities. »[22] The objective is not the patient and lasting resolution of a conflict’s root causes, but the conclusion of a quick, spectacular, and visible « deal » that can be presented as a personal victory.

This method creates a feedback loop. The show of force is necessary to justify opening negotiations, and the negotiations, even if they only yield superficial results, are necessary to justify the initial show of force. In this framework, the Nobel Peace Prize is not, as General François Mermet says, « a reward for peace, but the crowning achievement of the method itself. »[**] It would be the ultimate proof that the coercive and transactional « America First » approach is the most effective path to world peace.[24]

III: Synthesis and Comparative Analysis: Continuities and Ruptures in American Power Politics

By juxtaposing the deployment of the Gerald R. Ford under the Biden administration and the doctrine of Donald Trump, it is possible to discern both clear stylistic ruptures and deep strategic continuities that transcend political transitions in Washington.

A Fundamental Strategic Continuity vis-à-vis Russia

Despite Donald Trump’s sometimes ambiguous rhetoric toward Vladimir Putin, his administration, in practice, maintained a posture of deterrence against Russia. The European Deterrence Initiative (EDI) program, intended to strengthen the U.S. military presence in Europe, even reached its budget peak under his presidency.[21] The Biden administration, though much firmer and more consistent in its discourse, follows in the continuity of this policy of containing the Russian threat.[25][26]

The difference lies in the method, not the final objective. Joe Biden uses the multilateral framework of NATO and the language of cooperation to present a united front and reassure allies.[01][11] Donald Trump, on the other hand, favored bilateral pressure and the threat of withdrawal to compel allies to increase their military spending.[21][27] In both cases, however, the goal is the same: to strengthen the Western military apparatus against Russia. The apparent divergence between the two presidents’ policies masks a structural convergence, dictated by a shared perception within the American defense establishment of the need to respond to great power competition. This institutional analysis, which identifies Russia and China as the major strategic challenges, persists from one administration to the next.[26][28]

The deployment of the Gerald R. Ford under Biden and the increase in the EDI budget under Trump are therefore not contradictory policies, but two tactically different responses to the same perceived strategic threat.

Table 2: Comparison of Foreign Policy Approaches (Biden vs. Trump) toward NATO and Russia

Topic	Trump Administration	Biden Administration
Rhetoric on Article 5	Conditional questioning, transactional approach.	« Sacred » and unconditional commitment.
Burden Sharing	Maximum pressure, threats of withdrawal to force 2% spending.[21]	Incentive for cooperation, valuing efforts made.
Deterrence against Russia	Deterrence through unilateral force, combined with personal dialogue with Putin.	Deterrence through Alliance cohesion and strengthening the Eastern flank.[03][25]
Use of Military Deployments	A tool of pressure on allies and a lever for bilateral negotiation.	A tool for reassuring allies and demonstrating collective defense.

Power Projection: The Common Denominator of American Diplomacy

The deployment of a carrier strike group is the very embodiment of American power projection. This tool remains central, regardless of the administration in power. Under Joe Biden, it serves to reassure allies and deter within a multilateral framework.[03] Under a Trump presidency, the same aircraft carrier would likely have served as a « big stick » in a negotiation, a unilateral pressure lever.

The comparative analysis reveals that military power remains the primary instrument of American foreign policy. The real rupture is not between engagement and withdrawal, but in the purpose of using that power: is it used to maintain and strengthen the liberal international order (Biden) or to disrupt it in order to renegotiate its terms to one’s advantage (Trump)?[28][29]

A Counterfactual Scenario: The Gerald R. Ford Deployment Under a Trump Presidency

Let’s imagine for a moment that the deployment of the Gerald R. Ford to Norway had taken place under a Trump administration. The rhetoric and strategic use would have been radically different. The deployment would not have been presented as a commitment to NATO cohesion, but as a demonstration of American strength that European allies are incapable of matching. Donald Trump would undoubtedly have used it to publicly castigate Alliance members not meeting the 2% of GDP defense spending target, arguing that the United States alone shoulders the true burden of European security.[21][27]

Rather than integrating into the NATO command structure, the carrier could have been the prelude to a unilateral mediation offer from Trump between NATO and Russia, positioning himself as the supreme arbiter. Consistent with his transactional approach, he could have linked this deployment to trade demands or political concessions from Norway or other allies, indiscriminately mixing security and economic files.[29] Paradoxically, Trump’s brutal approach to NATO, though perceived as destructive, accelerated an awakening in Europe. The threat of the American security guarantee eroding, combined with the invasion of Ukraine, created an « electric shock » that pushed many allies to finally meet their spending targets.[21] The Biden administration thus inherited a more militarily aware and potentially more robust alliance, making credible collective deterrence actions like the Gerald R. Ford deployment possible.

Conclusion: Beyond Presidents, the Constants of American Strategy

In conclusion, the direct causal link suggested by the initial question is factually impossible. The deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford to the Norwegian Sea was a decision of the Biden administration, not Donald Trump. Furthermore, the latter’s ambition is not to avoid the Nobel Peace Prize, but on the contrary, to obtain it at all costs to validate his worldview.

However, the comparative analysis of these two elements—a foreign policy act by the Biden administration and the doctrine of its predecessor—reveals deep thematic links. The deployment of the Gerald R. Ford and the « Peace Through Strength » doctrine are two facets of the same immutable reality: the centrality of military power as the primary and ultimate tool of American foreign policy.

The true dichotomy between the two approaches lies not between action and inaction, but in the purpose of this power projection. For the Biden administration, it aims to strengthen and defend a multilateral order based on alliances and shared values. For Donald Trump, it aims to dismantle that order in favor of a system of bilateral « deals » dictated by the balance of power, for the exclusive benefit of the United States. The same instrument—a Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier—can thus serve two radically opposed worldviews, while responding to long-term strategic imperatives that, for their part, transcend administrations and define the constants of American power on the world stage.

The question posed by our loyal readers has given us the opportunity for this reflection, which we have no doubt will advance the debate. We thank them for it!

Joël-François Dumont

Sources and Legends

[*] « If you want to know what’s happening of importance in the world, and where, look where the American aircraft carriers are, » said Admiral Labouerie. For Vice-Admiral Christian Girard: « The military tool serves policy. The aircraft carrier is the most flexible and powerful means of serving it by demonstrating combined naval and air power, where we want, when we want, and for as long as we want. It is the major tool of conventional deterrence with a global reach. It is the quintessential military tool of the sea-based empire in the 21st century, as it was in the 20th. We must not forget that we say ‘an aircraft carrier,’ but it is actually a very complex carrier strike group that combines attack submarines and numerous anti-submarine and anti-aircraft surface ships, as well as land-based air assets to ensure total domination of the air-sea space, including under the sea, over considerable distances, equivalent to a little less than a third of the Mediterranean basin, for example. It takes considerable industrial and financial power to be able to build and maintain such assets. Only the United States, and tomorrow China, are capable of it on this scale. »

[**] Discussion with Air Force General François Mermet

[01] NATO. « US aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford comes under NATO command. » 5 juin 2023.

[02] U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa Public Affairs. « USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group Arrives in Oslo for Port Visit. » 24 mai 2023.

[03] Reuters. « USS Gerald R. Ford, world’s largest aircraft carrier, arrives in Oslo. » 24 mai 2023.

[04] U.S. Department of Defense. « Ford Carrier Strike Group Departs for First Full Deployment. » 4 octobre 2022.

[05] The White House Archives (Trump Administration). « Remarks by President Trump at the Commissioning Ceremony of the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78). » 22 juillet 2017.

[06] The Guardian. « Donald Trump complains he has not been awarded Nobel peace prize. » 22 septembre 2023.

[07] Associated Press. « Trump says he deserves Nobel Peace Prize, but he won’t get a fair shot at one. » 22 septembre 2023.

[08] Foreign Policy. « Trump’s Nobel Prize Fever Dream. » 9 octobre 2020.

[09] The Hill. « Trump nominated for Nobel Peace Prize for Abraham Accords. » 9 septembre 2020.

[10] U.S. European Command. « USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group on Scheduled Deployment in EUCOM Area of Responsibility. » 2 mai 2023.

[11] Le Monde. « Le « Gerald-R.-Ford », plus grand navire de guerre au monde, fait une escale très politique en Norvège. » 24 mai 2023.

[12] USNI News. « USS Gerald R. Ford Now Operating in Norwegian Sea. » 2 juin 2023.

[13] NATO Allied Air Command. « NATO and Partner air forces side-by-side in Arctic Challenge Exercise 2023. » 29 mai 2023.

[14] Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). « The Ice Curtain: Russia’s Arctic Military Presence. » 25 mars 2020.

[15] Council on Foreign Relations. « The Arctic: A New Frontier for U.S.-Russia-China Competition. » 12 juillet 2023.

[16] The Economist. « The great-power contest for the Arctic is heating up. » 16 mai 2023.

[17] Wilson Center. « China’s Arctic Ambitions and the New Geopolitical Realities in the Far North. » 15 juin 2023.

[18] Brookings Institution. « The Trump doctrine: A chaotic, transactional, and hyper-nationalist foreign policy. » 14 janvier 2021.

[19] CATO Institute. « Assessing the Trump Doctrine. » Hiver 2020/2021.

[20] Foreign Affairs. « The Trump Doctrine, RIP. » Janvier/Février 2021.

[21] Chatham House. « Trump and NATO: The End of the Transatlantic Bargain? » Juillet 2020.

[22] The New York Times. « For Trump, a Nobel Prize Is a Long-Sought Trophy. » 11 septembre 2020.

[23] The Jerusalem Post. « Netanyahu recommends Trump for Nobel Peace Prize. » 28 septembre 2020.

[24] The National Interest. « Peace Through Strength: The Core of the Trump Doctrine. » 18 mai 2020.

[25] Foreign Affairs. « The Biden Doctrine. » Mars/Avril 2021. 

[26] U.S. Department of State. « The Biden-Harris Administration’s National Security Strategy. » Octobre 2022.

[27] The Atlantic. « Trump’s NATO Rants Get Results. » 12 juillet 2018.

[28] White House. « National Security Strategy. » Octobre 2022.

[29] Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. « The End of the Grand Bargain: How Trump Has Changed U.S. Foreign Policy. » 23 juin 2020.

See Also: « L’USS Gerald R. Ford en mer de Norvège » — (2025-0828) —

In depth Analysis:

What is the strategic significance of the USS Gerald R. Ford’s deployment in the Norwegian Sea in August 2025? While stylistic differences exist between the Biden and Trump administrations, a fundamental continuity in American foreign policy—centered on military power projection and great power competition—persists. Joël-François Dumont dissects here Donald Trump’s « Peace through Strength » doctrine, highlighting its transactional nature and his personal quest for the Nobel Peace Prize as a validation of his anti-liberal approach to international relations. Both Biden’s or Trmp’s administrations, despite radically different styles, consistently employ military power projection as a core instrument of U.S. foreign policy. The fundamental divergence lies in the objective of this power: Biden seeks to uphold the liberal multilateral order, while Trump aims to dismantle it for transactional, unilateral gains. The USS Gerald R. Ford thus serves as a potent symbol adaptable to two contrasting visions of global engagement, while addressing enduring strategic imperatives, particularly confronting Russia in the Arctic.