Norway’s Nobel Peace Prize celebrations, usually marked by a spirited torchlight procession through Oslo’s chilly streets, will look markedly different this year. The Norwegian Peace Council, the country’s largest peace organization, announced on October 30, 2025, that it would forego its traditional tribute to the Nobel Peace Prize laureate. The reason? Widespread dissatisfaction with the Nobel Committee’s selection of Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado as this year’s recipient.
“We have great respect for the Nobel Committee and the Peace Prize as an institution, but as an organization we must also be true to our own principles and the broad peace movement we represent,” said Eline H. Lorentzen, Chairwoman of the Peace Council, according to 300th. Lorentzen made it clear that the Council’s decision was not made lightly, emphasizing both the organization’s respect for the Nobel legacy and its commitment to its own values. She added, “We look forward to celebrating the Peace Prize again in the coming years.”
This move marks a rare public rift between Norway’s peace activists and the Nobel Committee, whose choices have occasionally sparked controversy but seldom led to such a visible protest. The Council’s decision reflects a broader debate about the role of the Nobel Peace Prize in international politics and the standards by which its recipients are chosen.
According to Knewz, the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to María Corina Machado 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.” Machado, a prominent figure in Venezuela’s opposition, has long been at the forefront of efforts to challenge the country’s authoritarian leadership and push for free elections.
Yet, the announcement of Machado’s win was accompanied by a flurry of political drama—most notably involving former U.S. President Donald Trump. In the months leading up to the Nobel announcement, Trump had openly campaigned for the prize, touting his role in brokering the recent Israel-Hamas ceasefire treaty and insisting he was deserving of the global honor. “It would be a big insult if I didn’t land the prestigious award,” Trump declared, as quoted by Knewz.
But the Nobel Committee was unmoved by Trump’s campaign. At a press conference following the announcement, committee chair Jørgen Watne Frydnes addressed the selection process, pointedly explaining that the prize is awarded only to individuals who exemplify “courage and integrity.” Frydnes said, “In the long history of the Nobel Peace Prize, I think this committee has seen many types of campaign, media attention. We receive thousands and thousands of letters every year of people wanting to say what, for them, leads to peace. This committee sits in a room filled with the portraits of all laureates, and that room is filled with both courage and integrity. So we base only our decision on the work and the will of Alfred Nobel.”
Though Frydnes did not mention Trump by name, many interpreted his remarks as a subtle rebuke of the former president’s lobbying efforts. The committee went on to describe Machado as “one of the most extraordinary examples of civilian courage in Latin America in recent times” and “a key, unifying figure in a political opposition that was once deeply divided—an opposition that found common ground in the demand for free elections and representative government.”
The White House, however, was quick to criticize the Nobel Committee’s decision, accusing its members of placing “politics over peace.” White House Communications Director Steven Cheung took to X (formerly Twitter) to voice the administration’s displeasure: “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 proved they place politics over peace.”
In a twist that added further intrigue to the unfolding story, Machado herself publicly praised Trump after her win. On X, she dedicated the prize “to the suffering people of Venezuela and to President Trump for his decisive support of our cause!” She continued, “This recognition of the struggle of all Venezuelans is a boost to conclude our task: to conquer freedom. 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.”
Machado’s acknowledgment of Trump’s support—unusual for a Nobel Peace Prize winner—sparked debate among international observers and peace activists. On one hand, her gratitude was seen by some as a diplomatic gesture, recognizing the geopolitical realities that shape Venezuela’s struggle for democracy. On the other, critics argued it blurred the lines between the Peace Prize’s intended celebration of nonpartisan humanitarian achievement and the messy realities of global politics.
Meanwhile, the Norwegian Peace Council’s decision to forgo its torchlight procession has become a symbol of broader unease within the peace community. For decades, the procession has served as a powerful, unifying moment for Norwegians and peace advocates worldwide—a celebration of hope and progress. Its absence this year signals not just disagreement with the committee’s choice, but also a deeper questioning of the Nobel Peace Prize’s evolving role in an increasingly polarized world.
Historically, the Nobel Peace Prize has not shied away from controversy. Past recipients—from Henry Kissinger to Barack Obama—have faced both acclaim and criticism, with the committee often walking a tightrope between idealism and pragmatism. Yet, the 2025 prize has drawn particularly sharp divisions, with some lauding Machado’s courage and others questioning whether the award should be so closely tied to opposition politics in a fraught national context.
For many in Norway and beyond, the events surrounding this year’s Nobel Peace Prize have reignited debates over the meaning of peace, the criteria for global recognition, and the intersection of activism and politics. The Peace Council’s decision, while unprecedented in recent memory, has opened up space for reflection: What does it mean to honor peace in a world where the very definition of peace is contested?
As the Nobel ceremony proceeds without its traditional torchlit fanfare, both supporters and critics of the committee’s decision will be watching closely. Will Machado’s recognition inspire greater momentum for democratic change in Venezuela, or will the controversy overshadow her achievements? Only time will tell. For now, the Nobel Peace Prize remains as much a mirror of our world’s hopes and divisions as it is a celebration of its peacemakers.
