Power, politics and perception: Machado-Trump’s ‘Nobel’ drama reignites global political fault lines

By Mishan Ray

They say a powerful emperor can bend the world to his will, command armies, redraw borders and even silence dissent. But there are limits to raw power. Respect can never be seized, legitimacy cannot be forced, and moral authority cannot be conquered. It must be conferred. The Nobel Peace Prize exists precisely in this realm- beyond coercion, beyond office, beyond might.

Since its inception, the Nobel Peace Prize has occupied a fragile space between moral idealism and political reality. Conceived as recognition of those who advance peace, it has repeatedly mirrored the contradictions, ambitions, and anxieties of the global order in which it is awarded. The controversy surrounding the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize has once again revived an enduring question- is peace an achievement already secured, or an aspiration the world is still struggling to reach?

The episode unfolded when María Corina Machado, the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, symbolically presented her Nobel medal to U.S. President Donald Trump. Legally, the act was meaningless. Politically, it was thunderous. The Norwegian Nobel Committee moved swiftly to clarify a basic but frequently misunderstood principle- the Nobel Peace Prize is non-transferable. A medal may change hands; the honour does not.

Also Read: Who Is Maria Cornia Machado & Why She Won the Nobel Peace Prize?

Yet, the controversy is not rooted in legal technicalities. It is anchored in symbolism.

The Politics of Symbolism

Machado’s gesture was unmistakably political- an attempt to internationalise Venezuela’s democratic struggle and acknowledge what she perceived as external support. In doing so, she transformed a personal honour into a geopolitical signal. To supporters, it was an act of gratitude. To critics, it was the politicisation of a prize meant to stand above power contests.

This tension is hardly unprecedented. From Henry Kissinger to Barack Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize has often been awarded not solely for outcomes delivered, but for trajectories imagined. At times, the prize has functioned less as a seal of completion and more as a moral prod- an encouragement toward a hoped-for future rather than a verdict on a settled past.

Read More: Why US President Donald Trump’s Venezuela oil strategy may not shake markets immediately

Trump and the Optics of Equality

Donald Trump’s response revealed how deeply symbolism matters in contemporary politics. By reposting official images of the medal presentation, he embraced the moment with visible satisfaction. For Trump, the episode carried personal and political resonance. It visually, and rhetorically, placed him alongside Barack Obama, the only U.S. president to have formally received the Nobel Peace Prize while in office.

Trump is not a Nobel laureate. Yet in the age of image-driven politics, distinctions blur easily. Optics often competes with facts, and sometimes overpowers them. A medal, stripped of institutional sanction, still retains narrative value. It becomes a prop in the construction of legitimacy, a suggestion of parity, a quiet rebuttal to perceived slights.

You May Like: Sanjay Dutt wishes to do biopic of Donald Trump and the reason is hilarious; watch

Achievement vs Aspiration

This incident exposes a deeper truth about the Nobel Peace Prize itself. In a world marked by unresolved wars, democratic backsliding, and sharpening great-power rivalry, peace increasingly resembles an unfinished project rather than a completed task.

When the Nobel Committee insists that the prize cannot be transferred, it is safeguarding institutional integrity. But when laureates and political leaders reinterpret its symbolism, they reveal something more enduring- the prize’s real power lies not in its statutes, but in its moral currency.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author.)