Former President Donald Trump is receiving unusually strong praise from prominent Democrats after brokering a breakthrough peace deal between Israel and Hamas, which effectively ended more than two years of intense conflict. The agreement was mediated with the help of regional partners like Qatar, and secured the release of all 20 remaining Israeli hostages in exchange for over 1,900 Palestinian prisoners, a historic and high-stakes prisoner swap. This deal is being hailed as a major diplomatic achievement, especially in light of the human cost and geopolitical tensions that have weighed on the region.
Among the most vocal Democrats expressing gratitude was former President Bill Clinton, who said that Trump and his team “deserve great credit” for keeping the negotiations alive. Clinton framed the ceasefire as fragile but vital, emphasizing that it could serve as a foundation for a more lasting peace if properly nurtured. He also pointed out that the humanitarian aid flowing into Gaza now is a critical lifeline for civilians who have long suffered under the siege. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer echoed this sentiment, calling the day the hostages came home “a wonderful day.” He credited not only Trump’s administration but also the families of the hostages, whose tireless advocacy helped make the exchange possible.
Not all Democrats who reacted mentioned Trump by name, but many praised the outcome of the deal nonetheless. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries expressed gratitude for the humanitarian progress, highlighting that “humanitarian assistance is being surged into Gaza for Palestinian civilians.” At the same time, Senator Elizabeth Warren mourned those who could not return, calling for this moment to be a stepping stone toward “lasting peace … for both Israelis and Palestinians.” These more measured or cautious reactions reflect how deeply divided Democrats remain on broader Middle East policy, even amid widespread relief.
Beyond these lawmakers, some key foreign-policy figures also acknowledged Trump’s role. Jake Sullivan, who was President Biden’s National Security Adviser, told CNN that Trump “deserves credit” for the agreement, noting that it took “determination and hard work” by Trump, his special envoys, and regional actors. Sullivan added, however, that the long-term challenge remains: ensuring that the ceasefire holds and opens the way for a credible path to a two-state solution. Meanwhile, media commentators from across the ideological spectrum also weighed in. For instance, historian and former Biden speechwriter Jon Meacham described the deal as “a victory for President Trump … not simply by brute force, but by ideas and civilized norms.”
While praise is coming from across the aisle, some Democrats are walking a fine line. A number of them—especially in Congress—are applauding the ceasefire and the deal’s humanitarian impact but deliberately avoiding direct credit to Trump. Senator Mark Warner and Rep. Josh Gottheimer issued statements lauding the “American leadership” that made the ceasefire possible, without naming any individual. Their more guarded tone underscores a broader tension: many in the party support peace and stability in the region, but remain wary of giving a political win to Trump given their disagreements on his broader agenda.
Trump himself has seized on this bipartisan moment to reframe his legacy. He’s presented the deal as a turning point in Middle East diplomacy, casting himself as a dealmaker who can transcend the usual partisan divides. According to media reports, he’s also leveraging this success to push a longer-term 20-point peace plan for Gaza, envisioning not only reconstruction but also a transition toward more stable governance. For his part, Clinton has urged all parties to work together to turn the fragile ceasefire into a meaningful, lasting peace — not just in rhetoric, but through coordinated international effort.
In sum, the peace deal brokered by Trump stands out not only for its substance — ending hostilities, facilitating a huge hostage exchange, and enabling aid — but also for its unusual political fallout. In a deeply polarized era, some of Trump’s most consistent Democratic critics have publicly acknowledged his role, if cautiously. Their praise reflects a shared recognition of the human stakes: the suffering of hostages, the trauma of war, and the urgency of bringing relief. Whether this moment leads to genuine, lasting peace remains to be seen, but it’s already reshaped how American political leaders across party lines are talking about Trump’s influence in global diplomacy.
