In a surprising twist that bridges one of the most bitter political rivalries in recent US history, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has stated that she would nominate former President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize — but only under one very specific condition. Clinton, who faced Trump in the highly contentious 2016 presidential election, said the honour would be warranted if he manages to end the ongoing war in Ukraine without forcing Kyiv to surrender any of its territory to Russia. Her remarks were first reported by the New York Times and quickly sparked widespread attention, given the fraught history between the two political figures.
Speaking on the “Raging Moderates” podcast in a conversation with host Jessica Tarlov, Clinton made her position clear. She said that if Trump could secure an end to what she described as a “terrible war” and do so in a way that ensured Ukraine did not have to give up land to what she called “the aggressor,” it would represent a diplomatic breakthrough worthy of global recognition. Clinton further added that the effort would need to involve Trump taking a firm stance against Russian President Vladimir Putin — something she suggested had not been seen in recent years, but might be possible in the current circumstances.
Clinton’s reasoning, she explained, was grounded in her larger objective of preventing any outcome that could be interpreted as a capitulation to Moscow. She emphasised that she had no interest in praising Trump for its own sake, but that the stakes of the Ukraine conflict transcended political rivalries. “If President Trump were the architect of that,” she remarked, “I’d nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize.” The comment underscored that her support for such a nomination would be conditional on an agreement that fully preserved Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Her comments came just as Trump was on his way to Alaska for a high-profile meeting with Vladimir Putin — a summit that many observers have described as one of the most significant diplomatic engagements of his presidency. The talks are aimed at ending the war, now in its third year, and Trump has publicly expressed optimism about the prospects for peace. He has claimed that Putin is open to striking a deal, though he has also estimated that there remains about a 25 percent chance that the negotiations could fail.
The history between Clinton and Trump adds an unmistakable layer of intrigue to her remarks. In 2016, Clinton not only lost the presidential race to Trump but also delivered some of the most scathing criticisms of his political career. She famously referred to a portion of his supporters as a “basket of deplorables” and repeatedly argued that he was “temperamentally unfit” for the presidency. During that campaign, she also condemned his warm words for Putin, warning that such admiration for the Russian leader was misguided and dangerous.
Years later, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has reframed the geopolitical stakes, and Clinton’s recent comments suggest that even long-standing political adversaries can recognise each other’s achievements when the consequences extend beyond domestic politics. While many in Washington remain sceptical of Trump’s approach to Moscow, Clinton’s statement has introduced an unexpected note of bipartisan acknowledgment — albeit one firmly tied to the condition that Ukraine emerges from any peace deal whole, sovereign, and unbowed.
