(I dislike the Nobel Peace Prize as being all about politics and being inherently inimical to peace. The Norwegian Nobel Committee are also too woke, self-righteous and sanctimonious for my liking. Too many of the awards are just plain ridiculous and entirely statements of political correctness. But this flurry of stupidity caught my attention this week).
In the wake of María Corina Machado’s decision this week (January 15, 2026) to “present” her 2025 Nobel Peace Prize medal to Donald Trump in the Oval Office, we have witnessed the faintly ridiculous spectacle of a venerable (though somewhat senile) institution getting defensive and huffy about a gift it no longer owns.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee (NC) has responded with a flurry of “cease and desist” style public relations, reminding the world that the prize “cannot be transferred, shared, or revoked.” But in their rush to protect the “Nobel” brand, the Committee is entering the world of nonsense with a legal and logical absurdity.
The Myth of Permanent Authority
The NC’s central argument is that the award and the laureate are “inseparable.” They contend that while Machado can physically hand over the gold, the status of being the 2025 winner remains hers “for all time.”
But this is where the logic fails:
- The Right to Award vs. the Right to Own: The NC owns the right to select the winner. Once that choice is made and the physical assets (the medal, the diploma, the money) are handed over, the ownership of the prize, practically and legally, shifts to the recipient.
- The Power of Words: If Machado stands in the White House and says, “I share this with you,” she is not usurping the NC’s authority to grant awards. She is exercising her right as an owner to define the meaning of her property.
- The Record vs. Reality: The NC can keep their Register of Laureates in Oslo however they like, but they have no legal authority over how a laureate interprets their own achievement in the public square.
Defensive Branding or Political Insecurity?
The sheer vehemence of the NC’s recent press releases is counterproductive. By issuing multiple statements within a single week, the Committee suggests that their 2025 decision is so fragile that it requires constant shielding from the “wrong” people.
When an institution shouts this loudly about why someone isn’t a winner, it stops sounding like a defense of history and starts sounding like a defensive reaction to current politics. If the award is truly “final and stands for all time,” why does the Committee feel the need to argue with a photo-op?
The “Law is an Ass” Problem
To claim that a recipient cannot “share” the honour of their work is to treat the Nobel Prize like a lease rather than a gift. In any other legal context, once a gift is given, the giver loses the right to dictate its subsequent use or interpretation.
By insisting that Machado cannot “transfer” the sentiment of the prize, the NC is trying to police the thoughts and associations of its laureates. They are essentially saying: “We gave you this, but we still control what it means.”
Conclusion
The Nobel Committee would do well to remember that their prestige should come from the merit of their choices (not very impressive lately) and not from their ability to act as a “history monitor.” María Corina Machado can give her medal to whomever she chooses. Donald Trump can claim he “has” a Nobel. The NC can keep their books in Oslo. But when the Committee tries to assert “authority” over a laureate’s personal property and public statements, they aren’t protecting the brand. They are just confirming that, sometimes, the law (and the institution) can be an ass.
The k2p blog 