.png){kind=logo}
Last month, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to María Machado, a powerful advocate for democracy from Venezuela. Machado was praised for fighting oppression in Venezuela’s government and her work in freedom fighting gained global attention, but her recognition of this also brought international controversies.
President Trump was one who reacted strongly to the award. Trump argued he deserved it and that his recent diplomatic efforts, including a cease-fire deal between Gaza/Hamas and Israel, made him worthy of the prize. He claimed that the prize was “stolen” from him when Machado was chosen. Trump later said Machado had called him and told him she dedicated her award to him because he “really deserved it.”
In a surprising turn of events, Machado herself confirmed this in a tweet that credited Trump with supporting Venezuela’s opposition movement. She dedicated the prize to the Venezuelan people and “to President Trump for his decisive support of our cause.” Some students at Bellevue reacted with shock.
Sophomore Aarush Chekuri said, “I think it’s odd Trump thinks he could have won the prize. It just doesn’t seem like him at all.”
However, some students thought differently. Sophomore Chase Frechtling conferred, “A lot of people think Trump isn’t the type to win the prize, but he objectively has caused a lot of peace. I personally don’t disagree with his actions.”
Frechtling’s comment reflected the perspective of those who viewed Trump’s diplomacy, especially in the Middle East, as effective despite his divisive reputation.
The controversy highlights how awards like the Nobel Peace Prize also reflect global politics and differing ideas of peace. Machado’s recognition drew attention to Venezuela’s ongoing struggle for democracy, while Trump’s reaction reignited debate about his legacy in foreign affairs. This past month has shown how recognition on the world stage can unite and divide people at the same time.
