In a twist few could have predicted, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has publicly offered to nominate her longtime political rival, President Donald Trump, for the Nobel Peace Prize—if he can broker a peace deal in Ukraine that does not involve Ukrainian territorial concessions to Russia. Clinton’s remarks, made on August 15, 2025, during an appearance on the “Raging Moderates” podcast, have sent ripples through the political world and reignited debate about the ongoing war in Ukraine, the nature of diplomacy, and the sometimes surprising intersections of rivalry and statesmanship.
Clinton’s comments, first aired on the podcast and then amplified by her own post on X (formerly Twitter), were as clear as they were unexpected. “If Donald Trump negotiates an end to Putin’s war on Ukraine without Ukraine having to cede territory, I’ll nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize myself,” she wrote. The statement was not only a dramatic gesture, coming from someone who has spent years lambasting Trump’s foreign policy, but also a pointed challenge: the path to peace, in her view, must not come at the expense of Ukraine’s sovereignty.
According to Fox News, Clinton elaborated further during her podcast appearance, laying out the conditions she believes are necessary for such an accolade. “Honestly, if he could bring about the end to this terrible war, if he could end it without putting Ukraine in a position where it had to concede its territory to the aggressor, could really stand up to Putin—something we haven’t seen, but maybe this is the opportunity—if President Trump were the architect of that, I’d nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize,” Clinton told interviewer Jessica Tarlov.
Her remarks come as President Trump prepares for a highly anticipated meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska. This summit marks the first time in a decade that Putin has set foot on American soil, and the stakes could hardly be higher. Trump himself has expressed optimism about the prospects for peace, telling reporters in the Oval Office, “And if it’s a bad meeting, it’ll end very quickly. And if it’s a good meeting, we’re gonna end up getting peace in the pretty near future.”
Yet, Clinton’s endorsement is anything but unconditional. She set out a specific checklist for what would constitute a peace worthy of the Nobel Prize. According to her, Trump must secure a ceasefire, ensure there is “no exchange of territory,” and have Putin “actually withdrawing from the territory he seized in order to demonstrate his good faith efforts, let us say, not to threaten European security.” Clinton added, “My goal here is to not allow capitulation to Putin, aided and abetted by the United States.”
Clinton’s hard line is rooted in years of criticism toward both Trump and Putin. During the 2016 presidential campaign, she famously described Trump’s supporters as a “basket of deplorables” and accused him of being “not just unprepared—he’s temperamentally unfit” to be president. She also warned against his penchant for praising autocrats, saying, “He praises dictators like Vladimir Putin and picks fights with our friends.” Even after leaving office, Clinton has continued her critiques, writing in a New York Times op-ed earlier this year that Trump’s administration was “dumb” and would leave America “increasingly blind and blundering, feeble and friendless.”
Given this history, Clinton’s offer to nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize if he can engineer a just peace in Ukraine has been described as “particularly shocking” by outlets like The New York Post. It’s a moment that underscores both the gravity of the Ukraine war and the rare instances where political adversaries can find common ground—if only on the conditions for peace.
Trump, for his part, has long voiced confidence in his ability to strike a deal with Putin. According to The New York Post, he believes the Russian president wants to make a deal to end the war, estimating the chance of failure at just 25%. However, there’s a critical difference between Trump’s and Clinton’s visions for peace. Trump has suggested that a peace deal might require the swapping of territories by both sides, a notion Clinton flatly rejects. Her insistence is that “there must be a ceasefire, there will be no exchange of territory,” and only then would a Nobel nomination be warranted.
Clinton’s message to Trump ahead of his meeting with Putin was pointed: “He is not meeting with a friend. He is meeting with an adversary.” She warned of the dangers of rewarding aggression, stating, “I think that’s a terrible, terrible precedent, and I think it would make our country less safe, I think it will reward Putin’s aggression, and he will not stop. We know that.”
For Clinton, the stakes extend beyond Ukraine’s borders. She told the “Raging Moderates” podcast, “I’m dreaming that, for whatever combination of reasons, including the elusive Nobel Peace Prize, President Trump may actually stand up to Putin on behalf of, not just Ukraine and its democracy and its very brave people, but frankly, on behalf of our own security and interests.”
Meanwhile, the world watches closely. On the day of the summit, activists gathered in front of the U.S. embassy in Kyiv, raising awareness about the plight of prisoners of war and ongoing Russian attacks. The image of a young girl standing with demonstrators was a stark reminder of the human cost of the conflict and the urgency for a resolution that does not legitimize territorial conquest by force.
Trump and his allies have lobbied for years for him to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, often citing his diplomatic overtures in other global hotspots. But this time, the bar set by Clinton is unmistakably high. It’s not just about ending a war; it’s about ending it on terms that uphold international law and the principle that borders cannot be changed by violence.
As the summit unfolds in Alaska, the world is left to wonder: Can two of America’s most polarizing figures, even if indirectly, help bring about a peace that has so far eluded the world’s diplomats? Clinton’s challenge to Trump is as much about the future of Ukraine as it is about the future of international order.
Whatever the outcome, the rare convergence of purpose—however conditional—between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is a reminder that, in times of crisis, even the most entrenched rivals can find cause to hope for the same result.
