Peace Through Violence? The 2025 Nobel Prize Sends a Troubling Message
Graphic by Miles Kershner.
On October 10th, the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado. Machado was described by the Norwegian Nobel Committee as “a brave and committed champion of peace,” who received the award due to “her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.” She attempted to run against Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro in the 2024 presidential election, but the Maduro regime voided her candidacy. Machado instead supported a fellow opposition figure, Edmundo González, who overwhelmingly won the election. Despite the victory, Maduro denied the results and has since clung to power.
Machado’s courage is certainly commendable, as the Committee has pointed out. Leading opposition efforts against the corrupt and authoritarian Maduro regime, especially given the consequences faced by many who dare to resist, requires extraordinary bravery. Her leadership has given hope to millions of Venezuelans suffering under devastating poverty and repression. However, the enemy of an enemy isn’t always a friend. While Machado may champion democracy, she does not do so peacefully—which constitutes an unfortunate yet not unheard of error by the Nobel Committee.
Backlash came from both sides of the aisle following the announcement of the 2025 prize. In Washington, the White House and other MAGA republicans publicly voiced their dismay that the award had not been given to US president Donald Trump. Conversely, many on the left were quick to label Machado as “right-wing,” drawing parallels to Trump-style populism and authoritarianism. Machado does advocate for liberal economic reform: the privatization of state enterprises, a free market, and a reduced social safety net—a sharp contrast to Maduro’s socialism—but she also has fairly relaxed stances on abortion and gay rights. Machado is definitely conservative, but not a hardliner. The real issue is not her ideological stance, but rather whether she actually represents peace.
Machado has explicitly and repeatedly called for US military intervention in Venezuela. In interviews following her Nobel win, she described Maduro's government as a "narco-terrorism structure,” echoing Trump’s claims that Maduro is perpetrating the flow of illicit drugs into the US. By awarding Machado in the name of peace, the Committee has legitimized Trump's escalating military operations in the Caribbean. This will only further embolden the US to continue the illegal strikes.
Machado’s call to action has certainly not fallen on deaf ears: in the weeks following her Nobel victory, Trump revealed that he had authorized the CIA to conduct covert operations inside Venezuela with the goal of forcefully removing Maduro. The White House also recently sent Congress a memo declaring a "non-international armed conflict" against unnamed drug cartels, effectively issuing a declaration of war. As such, the prize also validates Trump’s dangerous fiction of "peace through strength"—the idea that military might creates stability.
It can be argued that while Machado would probably be better for the future of Venezuela, she is still undeserving of the Nobel Peace Prize. Maduro's regime has driven over one-fifth of Venezuela's population out of the country, presided over economic collapse, and maintained power through election fraud and violent repression. True, Machado has articulated plans to address this devastation and restore democratic governance. But deserving democracy doesn't justify foreign invasion. And awarding a peace prize to someone actively advocating for violent regime change confirms a problematic and antiquated precedent: that democracy can and should be delivered from the barrel of an American gun.