The victory of Venezuelan opposition figure María Corina Machado in the Nobel Peace Prize was not merely a celebration of a woman who fought for democracy and human rights. It carried profound political implications that extend far beyond Venezuela. The Norwegian Nobel Committee’s choice of Machado was less a conventional tribute than a double-edged political message to Washington and the world:

First, that the committee does not bow to the influence of major powers despite their repeated attempts.

Second, that Europe, through its symbolic institutions, still considers itself the moral guardian of the international order.

Thus, the Nobel Peace Prize was never just an academic or humanitarian award. It is a symbolic tool expressing the conscience of the liberal West. Every selection carries political meaning as much as moral value.

The timing of Machado’s award was also telling: a response to former U.S. President Donald Trump’s attempt to impose his name on the list of laureates. He had been nominated by allies from wildly divergent political camps—from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to leaders in Belarus, Russia, and East Timor—all representing different faces of geopolitical polarization.

The scene seemed to suggest the Nobel Committee was sending Trump a clear message: “We are not part of your new system of international relations.”

By choosing a Venezuelan woman who opposes an authoritarian regime in Latin America, rather than a Western or American figure, the committee doubled the political weight of its decision. It reminded Washington that the values underpinning the liberal order cannot be managed with the mentality of deals and transactions.

Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has monopolized the rhetoric of defending democracy and human rights. But Trump’s return to the political stage reopened Europe’s deepest wound: could it remain united in its values, while Washington veered toward isolationism and populism?

This year’s Nobel decision looked like a Norwegian attempt to reclaim the moral initiative, reminding Washington that Europe still retains the right to define who embodies “peace” in its worldview. For Europeans, Machado is the ideal figure: a woman confronting tyranny through peaceful means. Trump, by contrast, represents a leader who reduces politics to raw power and profit.

When Netanyahu officially nominated Trump for the Nobel, it seemed like an alliance between populist politicians in the Middle East and the West—an effort to appropriate the symbols of the Western liberal order itself. The committee’s reply was decisive: “The moral symbolism of the prize is not for sale, and cannot be weaponized in the games of leaders.”

From a strategic perspective, Trump’s pursuit of the Nobel was not about prestige alone. In his political culture, the award represents the ultimate recognition of the legitimacy of “peace the American way”—a peace forged through economic pressure and political deals, rather than balanced agreements.

But by choosing Machado, the Nobel Committee upended the equation: instead of enshrining “peace through force,” it celebrated “peace through peaceful resistance.”

Thus, the victory of a Venezuelan woman became a symbolic defeat for the leader of the world’s most powerful nation.

The Nobel Committee chose to reaffirm that a world order built on values still stands in defiance of the order of power Trump seeks to impose.

The prize—bearing the name of the engineer and inventor of dynamite in 1867—became, in 2025, a political dynamite blast in Washington’s face.

As Europeans celebrate María Corina Machado as a symbol of civil resistance, Trump finds himself on the long road back to the White House.