Nobel Peace Center Rebukes Trump After Controversy Involving Venezuela’s Opposition Leader

The Nobel Peace Center issued an unusually direct public statement this week after President Donald Trump displayed a Nobel Peace Prize medal that had been awarded to María Corina Machado, the Venezuelan opposition leader, prompting a wave of criticism from human rights advocates, democracy activists, and foreign policy experts across Europe and the Americas.

The controversy erupted after Mr. Trump appeared with Ms. Machado at the White House and later showcased a Nobel Peace Prize medal in the Oval Office. While the medal itself was genuine, the Norwegian Nobel Committee emphasized that the honor cannot be transferred, shared, or reassigned under any circumstances.

“As the Norwegian Nobel Committee has repeatedly stated, once a Nobel Prize is announced, the decision is final and stands for all time,” the Nobel Peace Center said in a statement circulated publicly and amplified by European media. “A medal can change ownership, but the title of Nobel Peace Prize laureate cannot.”

The statement went further than the committee’s customary neutral clarifications, carefully explaining the history, symbolism, and legal finality of the prize — a move analysts interpreted as a deliberate rebuke of attempts to blur the distinction between possession of the medal and recognition as a laureate.

A Prize, a Medal, and a Political Flashpoint

Ms. Machado, widely regarded by international observers as the central figure of Venezuela’s democratic opposition, was awarded the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize for her non-violent resistance to authoritarian rule and her role in organizing mass civil movements under severe repression.

During her visit to Washington, she acknowledged presenting the physical medal to Mr. Trump as a symbolic gesture of gratitude for U.S. diplomatic pressure on Venezuela. “I presented the president of the United States the Nobel Peace Prize medal,” she told reporters, a remark that quickly circulated on social media platforms including X, YouTube, and Instagram.

That moment, however, took on a different tone when White House communications later suggested that Mr. Trump regarded the medal as recognition of his own leadership. The Oval Office display — showing an inscription reading “2025 Nobel Peace Prize Medal awarded to María Corina Machado” — fueled accusations that the president was attempting to appropriate the prestige of the award without being its recipient.

The Nobel Peace Center’s statement appeared designed to eliminate any ambiguity. It noted that medals have historically been sold, donated, or loaned — including the medal of journalist Dmitry Muratov, auctioned to support Ukrainian refugees — but stressed that such transfers do not confer laureate status.

Mixed Signals From the White House

Complicating matters further, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reiterated on the same day that Mr. Trump’s view of Ms. Machado “has not changed,” saying that the president believes she “lacks the respect and support” of the Venezuelan people — a claim disputed by international election observers and Venezuelan diaspora groups.

The juxtaposition struck many as stark: Ms. Machado being publicly honored in Oslo while being rhetorically diminished in Washington.

“This is a case study in political instrumentalization,” said a former U.S. diplomat familiar with Latin American affairs, speaking on condition of anonymity. “The symbolism of the Nobel Prize is being used, while the substance of democratic support is being undermined.”

Venezuela, Oil, and Authoritarian Realignments

The episode unfolded amid broader geopolitical shifts. Mr. Trump announced a new understanding with what he described as Venezuela’s “interim president,” Delcy Rodríguez, a senior figure in the existing power structure long sanctioned by the United States and the European Union.

In a social media post, Mr. Trump praised the partnership as “spectacular,” citing cooperation on oil, minerals, and national security. Critics noted that such language echoed earlier U.S. alliances with authoritarian governments justified on economic grounds.

At the same time, independent journalists and commentators — including voices associated with progressive U.S. media networks — raised questions about reports that Venezuelan oil revenues would be routed through financial institutions in Qatar rather than the U.S. Treasury. Those claims have not been independently verified but have intensified scrutiny of the administration’s Venezuela policy.

A Wider Pattern of Democratic Strain

The Nobel controversy also coincided with sharp judicial criticism of the administration at home. In a federal court hearing involving the detention of pro-Palestinian student activists, Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, accused senior officials of orchestrating what he described as an “unconstitutional conspiracy” to suppress political dissent.

“These cabinet secretaries have failed their duty to uphold the Constitution,” Judge Young said from the bench, according to court transcripts. The remarks were widely shared by legal analysts and civil liberties groups as emblematic of a broader erosion of democratic norms.

For many observers, the Nobel dispute fits into the same pattern.

“You cannot separate symbolism from behavior,” said a European human rights scholar. “When a leader seeks the moral authority of the Nobel Peace Prize while disregarding constitutional rights and empowering authoritarian partners, the contradiction becomes impossible to ignore.”

Legacy and Contrast

The Nobel Peace Center’s statement concluded by invoking past laureates, including Martin Luther King Jr., whose 1964 award recognized non-violent struggle against racism and economic injustice. The center encouraged the public to revisit King’s Nobel lecture ahead of the U.S. holiday honoring him.

The contrast was implicit but unmistakable.

While Mr. Trump retains physical possession of a medal now displayed in the Oval Office, the Nobel institutions made clear that history — and the title of laureate — remain elsewhere.

In Oslo, the message was concise and final: prestige cannot be seized, only earned.