Donald Trump and the Nobel That Wasn’t His: Can a Peace Prize Be Given Away?

US President “Donald Trump” has long spoken about his desire for the Nobel Peace Prize. Last week, that aspiration took an unusual turn when Venezuelan opposition leader “María Corina Machado” visited the White House and presented him with “her” Nobel Peace Prize medal. The gesture has triggered global debate — not just over symbolism and politics, but over a basic legal question: can a Nobel Prize be transferred at all?

What exactly happened at the White House?

During a meeting in the Oval Office, Machado handed over the Nobel Peace Prize medal she won last year for her campaign against authoritarianism in Venezuela. Calling it a “recognition of President Trump’s commitment to freedom”, she framed the act as both personal gratitude and political messaging.

For Trump, the moment carried obvious resonance. He has repeatedly complained that past US presidents — including Barack Obama — were “undeserving” recipients, while claiming his own diplomatic record merited recognition. Photographs of the handover were swiftly circulated by the White House, giving the impression that Trump had finally got what he had long coveted.

But can a Nobel Peace Prize actually be transferred?

In formal terms, the answer is no. The “Nobel Prize” is awarded to an individual or organisation and remains legally theirs for life. Nobel statutes do not recognise transfer, gifting, or reassignment of the prize.

While laureates may choose to donate prize money, deposit medals in museums, or lend them for exhibitions, ownership does not change. Machado’s gesture, therefore, was symbolic rather than legal. Trump is not, and cannot become, a Nobel laureate through such an act.

Why did María Corina Machado do this?

Machado’s move must be read against Venezuela’s turbulent political backdrop. Following the reported capture of long-time strongman “Nicolás Maduro”, the country has entered a phase of deep uncertainty, with rival factions jockeying for legitimacy and international backing.

By presenting her Nobel medal to Trump, Machado appears to be signalling alignment with Washington and seeking explicit US endorsement as Venezuela’s future leader. The symbolism is clear: the Nobel, an emblem of democratic struggle, is being linked to American power at a decisive moment.

Why this matters beyond symbolism

The episode highlights how global awards can be repurposed as political tools. The Nobel Peace Prize, conceived as a recognition of efforts to reduce conflict, has often been criticised for premature or controversial selections. Yet this is among the first times a laureate has attempted to use the prize itself as diplomatic currency.

For Trump, the optics play into his preferred narrative — that global elites deny him recognition despite his influence over world affairs, from West Asia to Latin America. For Machado, it is a bid to internationalise Venezuela’s transition and anchor it firmly within US strategic priorities.

How does this fit into Trump’s wider foreign policy posture?

The Nobel moment comes amid an unusually expansive assertion of US influence under Trump. His administration has pushed ahead with the first sale of Venezuelan oil after Maduro’s fall, revived talk of “acquiring” “Greenland”, and oscillated between threats and restraint over unrest in “Iran”.

Seen together, these moves suggest a presidency eager to shape outcomes across regions — and to be visibly credited for doing so. The Nobel episode, while legally meaningless, fits neatly into this projection of global relevance.

What are the larger implications?

The incident underscores a tension at the heart of international recognition: prestige without enforcement. While institutions like the Nobel Committee guard their rules, political actors can still appropriate their symbolism to shape narratives at home and abroad.

For global audiences, the episode is a reminder that awards do not exist in a vacuum. They can be invoked, displayed, and even “gifted” in ways that blur lines between honour, ambition, and power — even if, on paper, nothing has changed at all.