Norway Hits Back: Foreign Minister Says Trump Knows Nobel Committee Is Independent

Norway has answered Donald Trump. A day after the American president used a campaign rally in Port Huron, Michigan, to call Norway a "shithouse country" and say Norwegian immigrants were not welcome in the United States because he had not received the Nobel Peace Prize, Norway's foreign minister went on national television to deliver a short, pointed correction: Trump already knows the prize is not Oslo's to give.

"He knows very well that the Nobel Committee is independent. We have reminded them of that, if anyone is wondering, and that is still the case," Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide told Norwegian broadcaster NRK on Monday, October 26, according to Reuters, The Times and multiple other outlets carrying his remarks.

The exchange is the latest chapter in a dispute that began when this year's Nobel Peace Prize went to someone else, and it has now widened from a complaint about a prize committee into a diplomatic row about an entire country and its people — all unfolding eight days before America's midterm elections, with immigration and foreign policy featuring prominently in Trump's closing campaign speeches.

This article sets out what Trump said, what Norway said back, how the prize actually works, and what — if anything — changes for Norwegian citizens, American voters, and the midterm campaign.

What Trump Said in Port Huron

Trump made the remarks on Sunday, October 25, at a political rally in Port Huron, Michigan, a border city on the St. Clair River facing Canada, where he was campaigning for Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers and other Michigan Republicans ahead of the November 3 midterms.

Attributing recent unrest in France to immigration, Trump said he would welcome immigrants from some countries but not from Norway "because I didn't get the Nobel Prize," adding: "So I don't want anybody from Norway."

"Frankly, Norway sucks. Norway has become a shithouse country, actually," Trump said, using a term he has previously applied to Haiti, Libya, Somalia and Yemen, according to Reuters.

The remarks were part of a wide-ranging, nearly two-hour speech in which Trump also attacked El-Sayed, defended the ongoing war with Iran, repeated a pledge to send $5,000 checks to American adults only if Republicans retain Congress, and boasted about trade negotiations with Canada. But it was the Norway passage that traveled furthest internationally, drawing headlines across Europe within hours.

Trump's frustration with the Nobel decision did not begin in Port Huron. Earlier this month, after the prize was announced, he called the failure to give him the award an "indelible stain" on Norway, describing the committee's choice as a "disgraceful and embarrassing decision" and saying the prize had been "forever discredited by a handful of radical ideologues." At a campaign rally in Syracuse, New York, he mocked this year's winner, the South African human rights lawyer Navanethem "Navi" Pillay, describing her as a "mystery person" and saying: "I never heard of the person. Nobody did."

Since returning to the White House in January 2025, Trump has made no secret of his desire to win the Nobel Peace Prize, and his public campaign for the award — including repeated claims about his role in ending conflicts — has been a recurring theme of his second term. Port Huron was the first time he connected that grievance directly to immigration policy, saying who may come to live in the United States.

Norway's Response: "He Knows Very Well"

Norway's response arrived on Monday, and it was deliberately narrow. Rather than trading insults, Oslo made a single factual point, repeated by two separate Norwegian voices.

Foreign Minister Eide's message to NRK was that the Norwegian government does not award the prize and has told the American side so before. His ministry declined to comment further, according to Reuters, a restraint that stood in contrast to the scale of Trump's language.

Erik Aasheim of the Nobel Institute made the same point to Newsweek, saying: "The Nobel Committee is entirely independent of the Norwegian government." The committee's independence is not a recent invention or a diplomatic talking point — it is the structure Alfred Nobel's will created, and it is the reason the prize can go to figures who embarrass governments, including Norway's own.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee is a five-member body appointed by Norway's parliament, the Storting, but it makes its decisions independently, and it is classed as a private body. Its members are not government ministers, they do not take instructions from the foreign ministry, and the government cannot overrule, delay or reverse a prize decision. That distinction is the whole of Norway's case: even if Oslo wanted to give Trump the prize, it could not.

Norwegian press coverage of the row itself reflected different readings of Trump's tone. One media audit of the coverage noted that Aftenposten, one of Oslo's leading papers, described the immigration line as apparently delivered somewhat in jest, with laughter and cheering from the Port Huron audience, while Dagbladet, another Oslo paper, carried no such jesting language. The audit's point was not to settle Trump's intent — that cannot be settled from press copy alone — but to show that even in Norway, the delivery was heard in more than one way. What was not in dispute in any account was the substance of the words themselves, which were broadcast and transcribed.

Who Won the Prize, and Why It Matters

The 2026 Nobel Peace Prize went to Navi Pillay, a South African judge and human rights lawyer who previously served as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and chaired a UN commission investigating events in Gaza. The committee selected her for work promoting accountability for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, according to summaries of the award.

Pillay's career has been spent largely in international courts and UN institutions — the kind of record the Nobel Committee has traditionally honored, and the kind of record that sits uneasily with a politics that treats international institutions with suspicion. That contrast is part of why the prize decision became a political story in the United States at all: it was read by Trump's supporters as a snub of his diplomacy, and by his critics as a routine committee choice that a president had chosen to personalize.

Trump's own framing of the prize has been consistent: he has presented his mediation and ceasefire efforts as prize-worthy, and he has treated the committee's decision to honor someone else as a judgment on him and on Norway. Norway's framing is equally consistent: the committee is independent, the government does not decide, and the row is therefore misdirected. Neither framing is likely to change the other's mind, which is why the dispute has lasted for weeks and may well continue past the midterms.

Is There a New Policy on Norwegian Immigrants?

The most important practical question raised by Port Huron is also the simplest to answer on the current evidence: no.

Reuters reported that there was no indication that the Trump administration was adopting a new official policy on Norwegian immigrants, and no record has emerged since of a bar, a ban, a suspension, or any change in how Norwegians enter the United States. The media audit of the row reached the same conclusion: no record reports any change in entry rules for Norwegian citizens.

That matters because campaign rhetoric and immigration policy are different things, and voters — in Norway as well as in the United States — are entitled to know which one they are hearing. A president saying at a rally that he does not want anybody from a particular country is a political statement with diplomatic consequences, even if it is not a policy. It is not, without a formal action by the relevant agencies, a change in the law. Norwegians planning travel to the United States have no new rule to comply with on the basis of the Port Huron remarks, and American officials have announced none.

The distinction also matters for the midterm campaign itself. Immigration has been one of the central issues of Trump's second term and of the 2026 campaign, and his Port Huron speech used immigration to draw a line between countries he praised and a country he attacked. Whether voters hear that as a joke, a warning, or a promise will depend on how they already view both Trump and immigration — but as a matter of public record, no Norwegian immigration policy has changed.

Norway: The Country Behind the Headline

Lost in the row about a prize is the country itself, which bears little resemblance to the description Trump gave it. Norway is among the highest-income countries in the world as measured by GDP per capita, according to International Monetary Fund data cited by Reuters. Its sovereign wealth fund — built from North Sea oil revenues and invested globally — posted a record profit of 1.75 trillion Norwegian crowns, about $184.3 billion, for the first half of 2026.

Norway is also a NATO ally of the United States, a major energy supplier to Europe, and a country whose foreign policy has often aligned with Washington, including on support for Ukraine. That alliance context is one reason the remarks drew attention beyond the usual campaign-trail controversy: American presidents do not routinely use vulgar language about allied nations in the final week of a national election campaign, and when they do, allied governments notice.

Trump has used the same vulgar term before. In his first term, in 2018, he faced criticism over reported remarks concerning Haiti and several African nations, and Reuters notes he has previously applied the term to Haiti, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. Norway is the newest addition to that list, and the first wealthy European ally to be described that way in a campaign speech. The pattern is part of why the story traveled: it was not only about Norway, but about a recurring feature of Trump's rhetoric, applied to a new target at a sensitive moment.

Why This Story Lands in the Midterm Campaign

The Norway row is not, on its face, a midterm story. No Senate seat depends on Norwegian voters, and no House district turns on the Nobel Committee. But it lands in the campaign for three reasons that do matter to American voters.

First, it is about how the president uses his platform in the final days of a campaign. Trump has held more than 20 rallies across 18 states since mid-September, and Port Huron was one stop in a deliberate closing blitz designed to energize Republican turnout. The speeches in that blitz have mixed policy arguments — on the economy, immigration, Iran and trade — with personal attacks and grievances. Voters deciding whether that style helps or hurts Republican candidates will weigh moments like the Norway passage alongside the policy pledges in the same speech, including the $5,000 checks promise and the Iran remarks.

Second, it is about the relationship between campaign language and governing. Trump's Port Huron speech repeatedly blurred the line between what he wants, what he promises, and what his administration will do — on checks, on Canada trade, on Iran, and on Norwegian immigration. The Norway response from Oslo is useful precisely because it tests one of those lines: a government with direct knowledge of the facts said the prize is not theirs to give, and no policy has changed. That kind of factual check does not decide an election, but it gives voters a firmer footing for judging the rest of the speech.

Third, it shows how quickly a domestic campaign moment becomes a foreign-policy event. Within a day, a rally remark in a Michigan hockey arena had drawn a response from a NATO ally's foreign minister, coverage in Norwegian, British and international press, and a debate about the independence of one of the world's most famous institutions. In a campaign where foreign policy — the Iran war, trade with Canada, relations with allies — is already unusually prominent for a midterm, that speed of transmission is itself part of the story.

What Happens Next

Three things are worth watching from here. The first is whether the White House or the State Department says anything further about Norway or about Norwegian immigration. So far, the administration has not announced a policy change, and silence on that front would confirm that Port Huron was campaign rhetoric rather than a policy preview. A formal statement, in either direction, would change the story materially.

The second is whether Trump returns to the Nobel subject at his remaining rallies. He is scheduled to speak in Corinth, Mississippi, on October 26 for Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith, and further rallies are expected in the final week. If the Nobel grievance becomes a regular closing argument, it will tell voters something about what the president wants the campaign's final days to be about. If it fades, Port Huron may stand as a one-night controversy rather than a theme.

The third is Norway itself. Oslo's response was measured — one factual correction, no further comment — and that restraint suggests the Norwegian government wants the row to cool rather than escalate. Whether it does depends less on Oslo than on whether the subject is raised again from the American side. Diplomatic rows of this kind usually end when one side stops feeding them; Norway has now said its piece, and the next move, if there is one, will come from Washington or from the campaign trail.

For American voters, the practical takeaway is narrow but clear: the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by an independent committee, not by the Norwegian government; Norway's foreign minister has now said so directly, on the record, to his own country's national broadcaster; and no change to Norwegian immigration rules has been announced. Everything else — the rhetoric, the grievance, the politics — is campaign theater, and voters have eight days to decide how much weight to give it.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did Trump say about Norway?

At a rally in Port Huron, Michigan, on October 25, Trump called Norway a "shithouse country," said "Norway sucks," and said Norwegian immigrants were not welcome in the United States "because I didn't get the Nobel Prize." He added: "So I don't want anybody from Norway."

What did Norway's foreign minister say in response?

Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide told NRK on October 26: "He knows very well that the Nobel Committee is independent. We have reminded them of that, if anyone is wondering, and that is still the case." His ministry declined to comment further.

Who awards the Nobel Peace Prize?

The Norwegian Nobel Committee, a five-member body appointed by Norway's parliament but independent in its decisions. It is a private body, and the Norwegian government does not decide, approve or overrule its choices.

Who won the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize?

Navi Pillay, a South African human rights lawyer and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, selected for work promoting accountability for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

Has the United States banned Norwegian immigrants?

No. Reuters reported no indication of a new official policy on Norwegian immigrants, and no record of a bar, ban or change in entry rules for Norwegians has emerged. The remarks were made at a campaign rally, not announced as a policy.

Why is Trump angry about the Nobel Prize?

Trump has long wanted the prize and has presented his diplomatic and ceasefire efforts as prize-worthy. After the committee honored Pillay, he called the decision an "indelible stain" on Norway and a "disgraceful and embarrassing decision." He had previously mocked Pillay at a Syracuse rally as a "mystery person."

Does this affect the midterm elections?

Not directly — no race turns on Norway — but the row illustrates the style and themes of Trump's closing campaign rallies, in which immigration, foreign policy and personal grievances feature heavily eight days before voters decide control of Congress on November 3.

This is a follow-up to the October 26 coverage of Trump's Port Huron remarks. That article noted Norway had not immediately commented; this article reports the response that arrived on Monday, October 26, from Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide and the Nobel Institute. Quotes are as reported by Reuters, The Times and NRK.