White House aide: Nobel Committee put ‘politics over peace’,” in English:
A senior White House official has harshly criticized the Norwegian Nobel Committee for awarding the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize in a way that, according to him, prioritizes political agendas over genuine peace efforts.
The controversy erupted on Friday, when Venezuelan opposition figure María Corina Machado was named recipient of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize. The U.S. President’s communications director, Steven Cheung, responded swiftly, accusing the committee of putting “politics over peace.” (The Guardian)
The White House’s Reaction
Cheung posted on social media that “the Nobel Committee proved they place politics over peace.” (The Guardian) He argued that the decision neglected President Donald Trump’s peace efforts, asserting that he had pursued agreements to resolve conflicts, end wars, and save lives. “He has the heart of a humanitarian,” Cheung said, “and there will never be anyone like him who can move mountains with the sheer force of his will.” (The Guardian)
Though Cheung’s critique focused on discrediting the committee’s decision, the White House did not offer any public praise of Machado’s award. (AP News)
Behind the scenes, Trump and his allies had actively lobbied for the honor, making a sustained push in recent weeks to highlight his role in global diplomacy and peace-making. (The Guardian)
The Nobel Committee’s Choice and Rationale
The Norwegian Nobel Committee selected María Corina Machado for her courageous resistance against authoritarianism in Venezuela and her years-long advocacy for democracy under harsh conditions. The committee praised her “tireless work promoting democratic rights … and her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.” (AP News)
Machado, despite being formally barred from public office and forced into hiding due to threats from the Maduro regime, has remained a potent symbol of democratic resilience. (The Washington Post)
In making their decision, the Nobel Committee also emphasized a broader, global context — calling attention to the growing wave of authoritarianism in Venezuela and other nations. The committee insisted that the prize must honor those who act with courage and conviction even in the face of risk. (The Guardian)
Trump’s Bid and the Fallout
Donald Trump had openly and persistently sought the Nobel Peace Prize, leveraging his diplomatic maneuvers—particularly his involvement in the Israel–Hamas conflict ceasefire talks—as evidence of his qualifications. (Financial Times) Some reports suggest that behind-the-scenes appeals were made to Norwegian officials and Nobel advisors to favor Trump. (The Guardian)
However, Trump’s efforts were unsuccessful, and the committee’s decision to pass him over triggered disappointment and anger within his inner circle. Analysts see the public denunciation as a strategic vindication—an attempt to frame the decision as politically motivated so as to undercut its legitimacy. (The Guardian)
Christopher Sabatini, a Latin America analyst, predicted that Trump would be “peeved” by the outcome, noting that Trump aggressively lobbied for the award and likely counted on it for both prestige and political capital. (The Guardian) Some observers also suggested that Maduro might see Machado’s win as both a challenge and an opportunity to spin the narrative. (Financial Times)
The Politics of Peace Awards
This episode underscores a tension long inherent in the Nobel Peace Prize: the fine line between recognizing genuine peace-building efforts and inadvertently rewarding or politicizing contentious global actors. The White House’s attack frames the issue starkly — as a competition not of moral merit, but of partisan influence.
Critics might argue that the White House’s swift dismissal of the committee’s judgment reflects a reluctance to accept independent evaluation. Supporters of the committee, in turn, maintain that the prize’s integrity depends on resisting external pressure and remaining free of partisan sway. (Financial Times)
Notably, the Nobel Committee has long faced lobbying and diplomatic overtures, particularly for high-profile candidates. Nevertheless, it maintains that its selection is based strictly on the criteria set forth in Alfred Nobel’s will — rewarding those who “shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations … for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” (AP News)
Broader Implications
The conflict over this year’s Peace Prize may have consequences beyond symbolic prestige. It could contribute to diplomatic friction between the United States and Norway, especially if perceptions grow that the U.S. was unfairly slighted. Indeed, Norwegian officials are said to be bracing for possible backlash. (The Guardian)
Domestically, the incident may also serve to fuel political narratives in Washington, where symbolic victories carry weight among supporters and opponents alike. The Trump administration’s criticism seeks not only to defend his record, but also to delegitimize criticism and rally his base by portraying external institutions as unfairly biased. (The Daily Beast)
As for Machado, she dedicated her award partly to the people of Venezuela—and, in a nod to U.S. support, to Trump’s administration. (The Washington Post) However, the Nobel Committee’s independence suggests that such dedications do not influence the decision-making process. (Financial Times)
Conclusion
In sum: the White House, via communications director Steven Cheung, accuses the Nobel Committee of placing politics above genuine efforts to promote peace, following its decision to award the 2025 Peace Prize to María Corina Machado rather than Donald Trump. The dispute highlights perennial tensions in awarding peace prizes — between objective judgment and political perception — and raises questions about how powerful nations respond when they are passed over.
If you like, I can also prepare a version tailored for a specific audience (e.g. international, academic, or for Bangladesh). Do you want me to do that?
0 Comments