On October 10, 2025, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced that Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado would receive the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, setting off a firestorm of debate across the globe. Machado, a longtime critic of President Nicolas Maduro’s authoritarian regime, was recognized for what the committee described as her “tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela and for her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy,” according to the official press release cited by multiple outlets, including The Hillsdale Collegian.
Machado’s credentials as a defender of democracy are well established. She founded the Atenea Foundation, which supports children in Caracas, as well as Sumate, an organization advocating for free elections and democratic processes in Venezuela. In 2023, Machado won a primary election but was subsequently banned from holding public office by Maduro’s government—a move widely condemned by international observers. Despite these setbacks, she has remained a prominent symbol of resistance and hope for millions of Venezuelans yearning for change.
Yet, the Nobel Committee’s decision has not gone unchallenged. Many, especially in the United States, question why the prize did not go to former President Donald Trump, who was nominated for his recent—and, some argue, significant—peacemaking efforts. Trump has been at the center of several high-profile international negotiations over the past year. In October 2025, he helped broker a ceasefire between Israel and Gaza. Earlier that year, on May 10, he announced a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, claiming it was the result of “a long night of talks mediated by the United States.” By June 24, Trump had also announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. His diplomatic involvement extended to Southeast Asia, where, according to reports, Cambodia and Thailand reached a ceasefire largely due to his intercession. Peace talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan were also facilitated with his input.
Even Machado herself acknowledged Trump’s role in her struggle. In a statement posted to X, she wrote, “We are on the threshold of victory and today, more than ever, we count on President Trump, the people of the United States, the peoples of Latin America, and the democratic nations of the world as our principal allies to achieve Freedom and democracy.” She went further, dedicating her Nobel Prize “to the suffering people of Venezuela and to President Trump for his decisive support of our cause!”
Despite these endorsements and a record of diplomatic activity, the Nobel Committee chose Machado. Jørgen Watne Frydnes, chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, addressed the rationale in his announcement, stating that the committee hoped the award would “convey a message for Venezuela’s president Nicolas Maduro and other authoritarian leaders,” and that it would “inspire people working for democracy all around the world.” Frydnes emphasized, “When authoritarians seize power, it is crucial to recognise courageous defenders of freedom who rise and resist.” He added, “We want to send a message to all authoritarian leaders: choose ballots, not bullets.”
This explicit messaging has led critics to argue that the Nobel Committee’s priorities have shifted. Rather than honoring the individual who has “done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses,” as Alfred Nobel’s will originally stipulated, the committee appears to have used the prize to send a political signal. As The Hillsdale Collegian observed, “The real motivation behind Machado’s win was not aligned with the will’s original stipulation, but rather with the committee’s new goal.”
The controversy over the Nobel Peace Prize comes at a time when Trump’s own approach to international conflict is under intense scrutiny. On October 23, President Trump made headlines for a starkly different reason: his comments about the U.S. military’s campaign against drug cartels in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea. Responding to a reporter’s question about whether he would seek a declaration of war from Congress, Trump replied, “I don’t think we’re gonna necessarily ask for a declaration of war. I think we’re just gonna kill people. Okay? We’re gonna kill them. They’re gonna be, like, dead.”
These remarks followed a series of U.S. military strikes on vessels allegedly carrying drugs, resulting in at least 37 deaths in under two months, according to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The most recent attacks expanded the military’s operational area to the waters off South America, where much of the world’s cocaine is smuggled. Hegseth drew a direct comparison between the war on terrorism after 9/11 and the Trump administration’s campaign against drug trafficking, declaring, “Just as Al Qaeda waged war on our homeland, these cartels are waging war on our border and our people. There will be no refuge or forgiveness—only justice.”
Trump has justified these extrajudicial strikes by insisting the U.S. is in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels, labeling them unlawful combatants and invoking legal frameworks similar to those used in the post-9/11 era. He said, “We have legal authority. We’re allowed to do that.” He even hinted at the possibility of expanding strikes to land targets, stating, “We will hit them very hard when they come in by land… We’re totally prepared to do that. And we’ll probably go back to Congress and explain exactly what we’re doing when we come to the land.”
These actions have sparked outrage and concern from lawmakers across the political spectrum, who question the president’s unilateral use of military force without explicit Congressional authorization. Critics on social media have accused Trump of “advocating for the murder of citizens of other countries without process and without proof of guilt,” calling his statements “treason” and “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Amidst these controversies, Trump’s supporters have continued to push for his recognition on the international stage. U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana introduced a resolution urging the Nobel Committee to honor Trump for his role in launching Operation Warp Speed, the federal initiative announced on May 15, 2020, to accelerate the development and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. Cassidy pointed out that Operation Warp Speed aimed to have “substantial quantities of a safe and effective vaccine available for Americans by January 2021.” He reiterated his support for Trump’s Nobel candidacy on X in September and met with the former president at the White House in October 2025.
White House Communications Director Stephen Cheung has also been vocal, writing on X, “President Trump will continue making peace deals, ending wars, and saving lives. He has the heart of a humanitarian, and there will never be anyone like him who can move mountains with the sheer force of his will.”
The Nobel Committee’s decision this year has reignited perennial debates about the meaning and purpose of the Peace Prize. Should it go to the individual who has achieved the most measurable progress toward peace, or to those who symbolize the ongoing struggle for freedom and democracy? In 2025, the committee chose the latter, sending a message that, at least for now, the prize is as much about hope and inspiration as it is about achievement.