The White House has reacted angrily to the Nobel Committee’s decision to award this year’s Peace Prize to Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado instead of former U.S. President Donald Trump.
The announcement, made in Oslo, praised Machado for her “tireless work in promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela and her struggle for a peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.”
White House communications director Steven Chang criticized the decision as “political bias disguised as virtue,” saying that “the Nobel Committee has proven once again that it values ideology over peace.” He argued that President Trump “will continue to pursue peace agreements around the world, end wars, and save lives.”
The statement reflects ongoing tensions between Trump’s political legacy and the international establishment. While his supporters claim he reshaped global diplomacy through the Abraham Accords and North Korea talks, critics argue that his approach was erratic and self-serving.
In contrast, Machado’s recognition is seen by many as a moral victory for democratic resistance in Latin America—a symbol of courage against repression. Yet, the White House’s outrage underscores how deeply politicized the Nobel Peace Prize has become, transforming what was once a global moral benchmark into a battleground of narratives.
