Trump’s Ukraine Peace Plan Sparks Backlash from Senators as Russia Signals Approval
A secret 28-point Ukraine-Russia peace plan from the Trump administration has ignited fierce criticism from senators who say it would force Ukraine to surrender significant territory while rewarding Russian aggression. The proposal, delivered to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy with what sources call an ultimatum-like deadline, would compel Ukraine to relinquish eastern territories and permanently abandon NATO aspirations.
The plan, revealed by Axios late last week, would require Ukraine to recognize Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk as de facto Russian territories while freezing control lines in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Perhaps most controversially, Ukraine would need to surrender the remaining 15% of Donetsk it still controls, creating a demilitarized buffer zone that would nonetheless be “internationally recognized as territory belonging to the Russian Federation,” according to documents reviewed by multiple news organizations.
Senators Revolt: “This Is a Russian Proposal”
Several U.S. senators attending the Halifax International Security Forum have pushed back forcefully against the plan, with Independent Sen. Angus King comparing it to appeasement of Hitler. “It rewards aggression. This is pure and simple. There’s no ethical, legal, moral, political justification for Russia claiming eastern Ukraine,” King stated during a panel discussion.
In a surprising twist, the senators claim Secretary of State Marco Rubio told them the widely circulated plan was not actually the administration’s position. “This is a Russian proposal,” Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen said, adding that “there is so much in that plan that is totally unacceptable.” Republican Sen. Mike Rounds backed this assertion, saying “it looked more like it was written in Russian to begin with” and that the administration wants to use it merely as “a starting point.”
Republican Sen. Thom Tillis suggested criticism should be even stronger than Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s statement that the President should find new advisers if officials are more concerned with appeasing Putin than securing peace. “We should not do anything that makes Putin feel like he has a win here. Honestly, I think what Mitch said was short of what should be said,” Tillis remarked.
A Stark Choice for Ukraine
President Trump has reportedly given Ukraine less than a week to accept the plan, telling reporters that Zelenskyy “had little choice but to accept.” The ultimatum-like language continued: “He’ll have to like it. And if he doesn’t like it then they should just keep fighting,” Trump told reporters.
What’s in it for Ukraine? The proposal includes economic elements such as allocating some frozen Russian assets for Ukraine’s reconstruction and security guarantees — though explicitly without NATO membership. The plan would also require Ukraine to reduce the size of its armed forces, give up certain long-range weaponry, and make Russian an official language.
For Russia, the rewards would be substantial: sanctions relief, reintegration into the global economy, partnerships with the U.S. in sectors like AI and mining, and re-entry into the G8. Perhaps most controversially, point 26 of the plan grants “full amnesty for their actions during the war” to all parties involved in the conflict.
Global Reactions
Russian President Vladimir Putin has welcomed the proposal, saying it “could form the basis of a final peace settlement” if Ukraine and its European allies agree — a response that has only intensified critics’ concerns about whose interests the plan serves.
Zelenskyy, walking a diplomatic tightrope, hasn’t rejected the plan outright. In an address, he insisted on fair treatment while pledging to “work calmly” with Washington and other partners during what he called “truly one of the most difficult moments in our history.”
How did this proposal come to be? According to multiple sources, the plan was crafted by the Trump administration and the Kremlin without Ukraine’s involvement — a process that has further alarmed both Democratic and Republican lawmakers.
Diplomatic Fallout
The controversy erupted at the Halifax International Security Forum, which in its 17th year has gathered about 300 military officials, diplomats, and scholars — though notably without U.S. defense officials, whose participation in think tank events has been suspended by the Trump administration.
The forum takes place against a backdrop of broader tensions in U.S.-Canada relations, with a Trump administration trade war causing many Canadians to avoid travel to the United States. Border states like New Hampshire are “seeing a dramatic drop in tourism,” according to Sen. Shaheen, who added, “I will continue to object to what the president is doing in terms about tariffs and his comments because they are not only detrimental to Canada and our relationship, but I think they are detrimental globally.”
As Secretary of State Rubio heads to Geneva for talks with European and Ukrainian officials, the question remains whether this controversial document represents an opening gambit or the administration’s true position. Either way, the proposal has already achieved one thing: uniting senators across the political spectrum in rare bipartisan concern over what they see as a plan that could hand Putin his biggest victory yet.
