DONALD TRUMP FINALLY GETS A NOBEL!

On January 15, 2026, a scene was created in the White House, which history might remember as “Theatre of Peace”. Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado presented Donald Trump with the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize medal—and Trump proudly accepted it. Cameras flashed, statements were released and Trump said he was proud to receive a “physical medal.” However, the Norwegian Nobel Committee was quick to clarify that the official status of “Nobel laureate” cannot be transferred. But when in politics have rules spoiled the celebration? Even though the medal was borrowed, the message was completely permanent.

This scene was not sudden. It was the final chapter of a long story that spanned from the 2024 election campaign to Trump’s second inauguration in January 2025. During this period, Trump and his allies made open efforts for the Nobel Peace Prize. In December 2024, Republican Congresswoman Claudia Tenney nominated him for the Abraham Accords. In early 2025, Republican Representative Buddy Carter made another nomination following the ceasefire brokered between Israel and Iran. Nominations grew, claims grew louder, and the narrative was set— Trump is a big contender for peace. There was a constant comparison with these claims—Barack Obama. Trump repeatedly said that Obama got the Nobel Prize “for doing nothing, just for winning the election”, even though he has played a decisive role in many conflicts. In May 2025, Trump even wrote on Truth’s social media platform that he should have won the award “four or five times”—citing examples like Rwanda, Congo, Serbia, and India– Pakistan. For the supporters it was confidence; Hyperbole for critics. As October 2025 approached, Trump’s language and stance kept changing. Sometimes he said that he had no particular interest in the Nobel, and sometimes that it would be an insult to the United States if he did not get it. In September 2025, he claimed that he had “prevented 7 wars in 7 months” and said that no one in history had done better than him. Then came 10 October 2025. The Norwegian Nobel Committee has announced the award of the Peace Prize to Maria Corina Machado. The White House response was immediate—charging that the committee “chose politics over peace.” Trump also said the committee did not select him because they “preference liberals.” Nothing changed in the official record, but the debate intensified.

In fact, this medal was not just a piece of metal, but a symbol of a global system in which awards, democracy and morality – all three are used as per the need. The Nobel Peace Prize was established in 1901 with the purpose of “preventing war,” but over its 125 years it has at times become a tool of post-war clarification, geopolitical advocacy, and strategic signaling. Statistics show that in the last three decades, in many of the leaders or institutions that received this award, either conflict escalated or there was a change of power.

It is no coincidence that Venezuela is at the center of this story. There came a time when the elected President along with his wife was arrested from his bedroom at night and taken to America, which even today raises questions on international law and sovereignty. Even at that time the narrative was the same – to save democracy. The same pattern is visible in different forms in the power change movements in Nepal and Bangladesh. Behind the words “constitutional reform”, “mass discontent” and “youth leadership”, several international reports revealed the role of digital campaigning networks, foreign funding and trained activism. Today, power change is not driven by tanks, but by trending hashtags, influencers and algorithms. The ongoing turmoil in Iran also seems to be part of this larger pattern. The role of foreign technology companies in stoking discontent there, through network access, digital tools, economic sanctions and pressure through veiled threats—all are already well known. The question is not that there are no problems; the question is who is giving direction to those problems and why. If we look back, Afghanistan is the most brutal example of this entire model. The US military intervention, which lasted two decades, cost nearly two trillion dollars. It was called a war against terrorism, but after the change of power, the country was handed over to anarchy, starvation and social disintegration. Today, more than 90% of the population in Afghanistan lives below the poverty line—the result not of peace, but of experiment. The irony is that during this time, America has given billions of dollars of aid and military support to a country like Pakistan, which has been facing serious allegations of patronizing terrorism, financing terrorist networks and money laundering. On the one hand, the narrative of war against terrorism, on the other hand, partnership with the same structures – this is not a contradiction, but a strategic reality.

Now Greenland also seems to be added to this list. When a dubious bill intended to control this region, rich in mineral resources and strategic sea routes, becomes a topic of discussion in parliaments, it becomes clear that geopolitics is no longer limited to just countries. The resources hidden under the snow have also become “national security”.

If we look at all these incidents together, then whatever may have been the case, ultimately Trump got the Nobel Medal – whether it was pressure, military intimidation of the US presidency, indirect threats, games of transfer of power or business deals. Peace may not have landed on the ground, but its symbol definitely reached in the form of a medal. When medals can be lent, maybe even morals.

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY THE AUTHOR ARE PERSONAL

Gajendra Singh, The writer is Public Policy Analyst