Behind the 28-Point Ukraine Peace Plan: A Fact-Check of Trump's Negotiations with Russia

An analysis of the Trump administration’s controversial Ukraine peace framework. Assistance from Claude AI.

Summary

In November 2025, the Trump administration presented a 28-point peace proposal to end the Russia-Ukraine war, triggering fierce bipartisan criticism in Congress and alarm among European allies. Multiple Bloomberg reports—including a leaked transcript of a phone call between Trump envoy Steve Witkoff and Putin aide Yuri Ushakov—reveal how the plan was developed in close coordination with the Kremlin, raising questions about the process, content, and strategic wisdom of the administration’s approach.

This analysis examines four Bloomberg pieces published between November 24-26, 2025, applying systematic fact-checking to distinguish between verified facts, interpretive disputes, and gaps in the public record.

Factual Consensus: What We Know

The 28-Point Plan Exists and Its Content Is Documented

Verified: Multiple independent sources obtained and published the full text of the 28-point peace proposal. The plan’s key provisions include:

Ukraine must withdraw from parts of Donetsk Oblast it currently controls, creating a demilitarized buffer zone recognized as Russian territory
De facto U.S. recognition of Russian claims to Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk
Freezing the front line in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions
Ukraine must limit its armed forces to 600,000 personnel
Ukraine prohibited from joining NATO
Prohibition on foreign troops in Ukraine
$100 billion in frozen Russian assets allocated to Ukraine reconstruction
Full amnesty for all parties for wartime actions
Security guarantees modeled on NATO Article 5 principles
Sanctions relief for Russia negotiated in stages

These details were independently confirmed by Axios, PBS News, CBS News, ABC News, Al Jazeera, and multiple other outlets who obtained the draft document (Axios, 2025; PBS NewsHour, 2025; CBS News, 2025).

The Witkoff-Ushakov Call Occurred on October 14, 2025

Verified: Bloomberg obtained and published a recording and transcript of a phone conversation between Steve Witkoff (Trump’s special envoy) and Yuri Ushakov (Putin’s senior foreign policy adviser) that occurred on October 14, 2025. The authenticity of this call was acknowledged by President Trump, who characterized it as “standard negotiation” (Bloomberg, 2025a).

Key statements from the transcript include:

Witkoff told Ushakov: “I told the president that the Russian Federation has always wanted a peace deal. That’s my belief.”
Witkoff suggested using the Gaza ceasefire as a model: “I’m even thinking that maybe we set out like a 20-point peace proposal, just like we did in Gaza.”
Witkoff previewed territorial concessions: “Me to you, I know what it’s going to take to get a peace deal done: Donetsk and maybe a land swap somewhere.”
Witkoff advised Ushakov on how Putin should approach Trump, including suggesting Putin congratulate Trump on the Gaza deal and express respect for him as “a man of peace”

Congressional Republicans Criticized the Plan

Verified: Multiple Republican members of Congress publicly opposed the peace proposal:

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), former chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, stated on ABC News “This Week”: “Without that [ironclad security guarantees], I would not advise Ukraine to sign this. They can’t sign an agreement like Budapest and then allow Russia to invade again” (ABC News, 2025a).

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, issued a statement: “This so-called ‘peace plan’ has real problems, and I am highly skeptical it will achieve peace. Ukraine should not be forced to give up its lands to one of the world’s most flagrant war criminals in Vladimir Putin” (Wicker, 2025).

Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) posted on social media: “In the war between Ukraine and Russia, the first to surrender was America,” adding “This will be President Trump’s legacy if he forces this surrender plan on Ukraine” (Raw Story, 2025).

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stated: “Putin has spent the entire year trying to play President Trump for a fool. If Administration officials are more concerned with appeasing Putin than securing real peace, then the President ought to find new advisors. Rewarding Russian butchery would be disastrous to America’s interests” (McConnell, 2025).

Timeline of Events

Verified sequence:

October 13, 2025: Trump addresses Israeli Knesset as hostages are freed from Gaza
October 14, 2025: Witkoff-Ushakov phone call occurs
October 16, 2025: Trump speaks with Putin for two and a half hours
October 17, 2025: Zelenskyy visits the White House
October 24-26, 2025: Witkoff meets with Kirill Dmitriev in Miami (Dmitriev confirmed this meeting to Axios)
October 29, 2025: Ushakov and Dmitriev discuss Russian strategy in another phone call reviewed by Bloomberg
November 20, 2025: U.S. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll presents the 28-point plan to Zelenskyy in Kyiv
November 21, 2025: Full text of 28-point plan published by multiple outlets
November 23, 2025: U.S., Ukrainian, and European delegations hold talks in Geneva

This timeline is consistent across multiple independent sources (Bloomberg, 2025a; Axios, 2025).

Interpretive Disputes: Where Sources Disagree

Who Authored the Plan?

Andreas Kluth’s interpretation (Bloomberg opinion): The plan “was instead a list of Kremlin talking points leaked by Kirill Dimitriev, a Putin envoy, after talks in Florida with Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner” (Kluth, 2025). He notes the plan contains “odd language that seems to have been translated directly from Russian.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s position: Rubio initially told senators in a private briefing that the 28-point plan “is in fact a Russian proposal and ‘not our recommendation. It is not our peace plan.’” However, after this became public, his State Department spokesman called reports that Russians authored the plan “blatantly false” (Kluth, 2025).

White House position: White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt stated the plan was “drafted by Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff with input from Secretary of State Marco Rubio” and characterized it as reflecting “the realities of the situation” to find a “win-win scenario” (ABC News, 2025b).

Rep. McCaul’s assessment: “The inception of this agreement seems to have come from a [Trump special envoy Steve] Witkoff discussion with the Russian [Kirill] Dmitriev, who heads up the Russian sovereign wealth fund. It’s unclear how much input was given by either Ukraine or our European allies” (ABC News, 2025a).

Reuters reporting: On November 27, 2025, Reuters reported that the U.S.-backed plan was “partly based on a Russian ‘non-paper’ submitted to the Trump administration in October,” according to three sources. Moscow’s document outlined conditions Russia has long sought (Benzinga, 2025).

Factual status: The Witkoff-Ushakov transcript confirms close U.S.-Russia coordination in developing the proposal. The exact degree to which Russian preferences shaped the final text remains disputed, though the transcript shows Witkoff explicitly encouraging this collaboration and previewing specific territorial concessions that later appeared in the plan.

Assessment of the Plan’s Strategic Merit

Michael Bloomberg’s position (opinion): The original proposal “required Ukraine to surrender territory it still controls, slash its armed forces, bar foreign military support and hold elections on the Kremlin’s timetable, all while imposing no comparable obligations on the aggressor.” He argues it would allow Putin “to trigger their collapse at will” and would “pose a threat not just to Ukraine, but to US strategic interests” (Bloomberg, 2025b).

Andreas Kluth’s position (opinion): Characterizes the plan as “shameless” in “regurgitating positions that President Vladimir Putin has peddled all along” and argues it would condemn Kyiv “to de facto capitulation and Europe to perennial precarity” (Kluth, 2025).

Sen. Mark Warner’s position: Called the plan “awful” and stated “It would make Neville Chamberlain’s giving in to Hitler outside of World War II looks strong in comparison,” arguing it is “almost a series of Russian talking points” (ABC News, 2025a).

President Trump’s position: Told reporters: “He’s got to sell this to Ukraine. He’s going to sell Ukraine to Russia. That’s what a dealmaker does. You got to say, look, they want this, you got to convince them of this” (Bloomberg, 2025a). On Truth Social, Trump stated the plan “has been fine-tuned, with additional input from both sides, and there are only a few remaining points of disagreement” (Bloomberg, 2025a).

Putin’s position: Putin stated he believed the U.S. plan “could be used as the basis for a peace settlement” and that Russia was “ready to show the flexibility that has been offered to us” (Bloomberg, 2025a).

Factual status: These represent fundamentally different strategic assessments. Critics view the plan as rewarding Russian aggression and creating conditions for future conflict; supporters view it as pragmatic recognition of battlefield realities. The strategic outcome depends on future implementation and Russian behavior, which cannot be definitively assessed at present.

Primary Source Verification

Direct Evidence vs. Characterization

Strong primary source documentation:

The Witkoff-Ushakov transcript: Bloomberg reviewed an audio recording of the October 14 call and produced a verbatim transcript. This represents direct primary source evidence of the envoy’s approach and statements.
The 28-point plan text: Multiple news organizations obtained the actual document and published its full text, allowing independent verification of its provisions.
Official congressional statements: Multiple senators and representatives issued public statements and appeared on recorded television interviews, providing primary source documentation of congressional reaction.
Trump’s public statements: The President made on-the-record statements to reporters about the plan, including acknowledging the Witkoff call and characterizing the negotiation approach.

Weaker sourcing:

The October 29 Dmitriev-Ushakov call: Bloomberg states it reviewed “another recording” of a call “in Russian” where the two Putin aides “debated how strongly Moscow should push for its demands.” However, no transcript of this call was published, making independent verification impossible (Bloomberg, 2025a).
Threats to cut intelligence support: Bloomberg’s news article states “US officials had threatened to shut off critical intelligence support to the Ukrainian military if Zelenskyy refused to accept the proposal” (Bloomberg, 2025a). This claim lacks attribution to specific officials or documentation.
Rubio’s private briefing to senators: Andreas Kluth reports that Rubio told senators in a “private briefing” that the plan was a Russian proposal, citing “several senators, including Mike Rounds” (Kluth, 2025). This is second-hand reporting of a closed-door meeting.

Bloomberg’s Journalistic Practices

The news articles demonstrate strong sourcing practices:

Direct access to audio recordings with transcripts provided
Multiple independent sources confirming key facts
On-the-record statements from named officials
Obtaining actual document texts rather than relying on descriptions

The opinion pieces (Bloomberg and Kluth) clearly separate factual claims from interpretive judgments, though they draw strong conclusions about strategic implications.

Gaps and Omissions in the Public Record

What Remains Unknown

Ukrainian government’s internal deliberations: While Zelenskyy’s public statements are documented, the internal debates within the Ukrainian government about responding to the proposal remain largely unknown.
Full extent of U.S.-Russia communications: The two phone calls Bloomberg obtained represent snapshots, but the complete record of U.S.-Russia communications during the negotiation process is not public.
European government positions in detail: While general European alarm is documented, specific positions from individual European governments beyond public statements are not detailed in these articles.
National Security Council deliberations: The internal White House decision-making process that led to the proposal’s development is not documented in these articles.
The actual Russian “non-paper”: Reuters reported a Russian document was submitted, but its full text has not been published.
Keith Kellogg’s role: Rep. McCaul mentioned that Keith Kellogg “did get involved to write a security agreement,” but details of this parallel effort are sparse (ABC News, 2025a).

Information Present in Some Articles but Not Others

The corruption scandal reference: Michael Bloomberg’s opinion piece mentions that “Ukraine’s government should support a full investigation and accountability in a widening corruption scandal involving figures close to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy” (Bloomberg, 2025b). This scandal is not detailed in any of the other three Bloomberg pieces, representing a significant omission given its potential relevance to the negotiating context.

The Venezuelan parallel: Andreas Kluth draws an extensive parallel to the administration’s “Venezuela misadventure,” describing how “another special envoy, Ric Grenell, spent much of the year practicing discreet but promising diplomacy with Caracas” before Stephen Miller and Rubio shifted the approach toward potential military intervention (Kluth, 2025). This broader pattern of policy disarray is absent from the other articles.

JD Vance’s role and statements: Kluth describes Vice President Vance as “the leading isolationist in the White House” who has been “especially condescending toward Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy,” including telling him “Mr. President, so long as you behave, I won’t say anything” (Kluth, 2025). This significant detail about the Vice President’s involvement and attitude is not mentioned in the other pieces.

Dan Driscoll’s factional alignment: Kluth identifies army secretary Dan Driscoll as someone “who is close to Vice President JD Vance” (Kluth, 2025), suggesting factional divisions within the administration. This connection is not explored in the other articles.

Administration Infighting: Competing Narratives

Evidence of Internal Divisions

Andreas Kluth’s opinion piece presents the most detailed account of internal administration conflicts:

Marco Rubio (National Security Advisor/Secretary of State): Portrayed as a traditional Republican hawk who was “conspicuously uninvolved, at least until the last minute” in the plan’s development
Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner: Identified as the primary architects through talks with Kremlin envoys
JD Vance: Characterized as “the leading isolationist”
Dan Driscoll: Aligned with Vance
Keith Kellogg: “Nominally the one in charge of the Ukraine portfolio” but conducting “own talks who knows where”

Supporting evidence for this characterization:

Rubio’s reported statement to senators contradicting the plan’s presentation as U.S. policy
The Witkoff-Ushakov transcript showing the envoy operating with considerable autonomy
Congressional statements expressing confusion about who speaks for the administration

Limitations:

Much of this analysis relies on Kluth’s interpretation rather than direct documentation of internal conflicts
Some officials (particularly Kushner and Vance) are characterized without direct quotes or on-the-record statements about their roles

Reliability Assessment

Most Reliable Elements

The Witkoff-Ushakov transcript: This represents the highest-quality primary source in these articles—a verbatim recording of a key diplomatic exchange that was acknowledged as authentic by President Trump.
The 28-point plan text: Obtained by multiple independent news organizations and confirmed by administration officials, this document can be considered reliably established.
Congressional reactions: Public statements by named members of Congress, delivered on television or through official channels, are reliable documentation of legislative branch opposition.
Timeline of public events: The sequence of Trump-Putin calls, Zelenskyy visits, and diplomatic meetings is consistently reported across sources.

Areas Requiring Caution

Characterizations of internal administration dynamics: While plausible, Kluth’s detailed description of factional conflicts relies heavily on inference and anonymous sourcing rather than direct documentation.
Threats regarding intelligence support: The claim that the U.S. threatened to cut intelligence support lacks specific attribution and could not be independently verified from these articles.
Language analysis of the plan: Kluth’s assertion that the plan contains “odd language that seems to have been translated directly from Russian” is presented without linguistic analysis or specific examples.
Strategic predictions: Both Bloomberg opinion pieces make strong predictions about the plan’s likely consequences (encouraging nuclear proliferation, emboldening China, etc.). These are informed judgments but inherently speculative.

Source Quality Hierarchy

Tier 1 – Highest reliability:

Audio recordings with published transcripts
Full text of actual documents
On-the-record statements by named officials

Tier 2 – High reliability:

Multiple independent confirmations of factual claims
Reporting attributed to named sources
Consistent details across competing news organizations

Tier 3 – Moderate reliability:

Anonymous sourcing from credible outlets
Second-hand accounts of closed meetings
Reported characterizations of unreleased documents

Tier 4 – Lowest reliability (for facts, not analysis):

Strategic predictions and interpretations
Characterizations of officials’ motives
Descriptions of the negotiating atmosphere

Key Factual Findings

Established Facts

The Trump administration developed a 28-point peace proposal in close coordination with Russian officials, as documented by the Witkoff-Ushakov transcript.
The plan requires Ukraine to make substantial territorial concessions, including ceding control of parts of Donetsk it currently holds and accepting de facto Russian control of Crimea and other regions.
The plan imposes significant constraints on Ukraine (military size limits, NATO prohibition) while offering staged sanctions relief to Russia.
The proposal triggered bipartisan opposition in Congress, with prominent Republicans publicly criticizing it as favoring Russia.
European allies expressed alarm about the plan, with leaders rejecting provisions that would limit Ukraine’s military capabilities.
Steve Witkoff, acting as Trump’s special envoy, explicitly previewed territorial concessions to Russian officials before the plan was presented to Ukraine, and advised Putin’s aide on how to frame the proposal to Trump.

Disputed or Uncertain

The degree to which the plan represents Russian authorship vs. U.S. authorship remains contested, with administration officials offering contradictory statements.
Whether the plan’s security guarantees are sufficient to deter future Russian aggression is a matter of strategic judgment, not established fact.
The extent of internal administration disagreement over the plan is plausibly alleged but not comprehensively documented.
Whether the U.S. explicitly threatened to cut intelligence support to Ukraine if Zelenskyy rejected the plan lacks clear primary source confirmation.

Analysis: Explaining the Divergent Interpretations

Why These Articles Reach Different Conclusions

The four Bloomberg pieces, despite drawing on similar source material, emphasize different aspects:

Michael Bloomberg’s opinion piece focuses on strategic consequences and policy recommendations, arguing from a traditional foreign policy establishment perspective that the plan undermines U.S. interests and should be strengthened with more favorable terms for Ukraine.

The Witkoff-Ushakov transcript article is primarily descriptive, presenting the evidence of the phone call and its context with limited interpretive framing, allowing readers to draw their own conclusions about the appropriateness of Witkoff’s approach.

Andreas Kluth’s opinion piece emphasizes administrative dysfunction and lack of strategic coherence, framing the plan as symptomatic of deeper problems in how the Trump administration conducts foreign policy.

The news article on Witkoff advising Russia synthesizes the transcript with broader reporting on the plan’s development, providing context about how the proposal evolved through U.S.-Russia consultations.

These different emphases reflect the authors’ distinct roles (opinion columnists vs. news reporters) and analytical frameworks (strategic assessment vs. process criticism vs. factual documentation).

The Role of Political Perspective

It’s notable that criticism of the plan came from across the political spectrum:

Traditional Republican national security hawks (McConnell, Wicker)
House Republicans with foreign affairs expertise (McCaul, Bacon)
Democratic senators (Warner)
European allies of various political orientations

This broad opposition suggests the concerns transcend typical partisan divisions and reflect substantive disagreements about the plan’s strategic wisdom and fairness to Ukraine.

What Responsible Reporting Requires

Based on this fact-checking analysis, journalists and commentators discussing this topic should:

Distinguish clearly between documented facts and interpretations: The Witkoff-Ushakov call is documented fact; whether it represents diplomatic malpractice is an interpretation.
Acknowledge sourcing limitations: Some claims (like threats to cut intelligence support) lack the primary source documentation that others (like the transcript) possess.
Present competing views fairly: The plan has principled defenders and critics; neither position should be caricatured.
Avoid conflating different types of objections: Process concerns (insufficient Ukrainian input), strategic concerns (rewarding aggression), and practical concerns (enforceability) are distinct issues that deserve separate analysis.
Note what remains unknown: Significant aspects of the negotiation process, internal deliberations, and likely implementation remain outside public view.

Conclusion

The factual record establishes that the Trump administration developed its Ukraine peace proposal through extensive consultations with Russian officials, with special envoy Steve Witkoff actively coordinating with Kremlin aides and previewing territorial concessions before presenting the plan to Ukraine. The proposal’s provisions closely align with long-standing Russian demands, triggering substantial bipartisan opposition in Congress and alarm among European allies.

What remains interpretively contested is whether this approach represents pragmatic dealmaking that acknowledges battlefield realities or diplomatic malpractice that rewards aggression and undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty. These competing interpretations reflect fundamentally different strategic philosophies about American foreign policy, the value of supporting democratic allies, and the risks of appeasing authoritarian aggression.

The Bloomberg reporting provides strong primary source documentation of key events through the Witkoff-Ushakov transcript and the 28-point plan text, allowing readers to assess the facts independently. However, significant gaps remain in the public record regarding internal administration deliberations, the full extent of U.S.-Russia communications, and the likelihood of various outcomes if the plan is implemented.

For citizens evaluating this issue, the essential question is not whether the facts support one narrative or another—the documented facts are largely consistent across sources—but rather what these facts mean for American strategic interests and moral obligations to democratic allies under assault.

References

ABC News. (2025a, November 23). GOP Rep. McCaul says he would advise Ukraine not to sign Trump’s current peace plan. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gop-rep-mccaul-advise-ukraine-sign-trumps-peace/story?id=127797940

ABC News. (2025b, November 20). Trump administration’s 28-point Ukraine-Russia peace plan presented to Zelenskyy. https://abcnews.go.com/International/trump-administrations-28-point-ukraine-russia-peace-plan/story?id=127735249

Axios. (2025, November 20). Trump’s full 28-point Ukraine-Russia peace plan. https://www.axios.com/2025/11/20/trump-ukraine-peace-plan-28-points-russia

Benzinga. (2025, November 25). JD Vance hits back at Mitch McConnell’s ‘appeasing Putin’ claim as Ukraine accepts ‘core terms’ of Trump’s ‘fine-tuned’ deal. https://www.benzinga.com/news/politics/25/11/49078048/jd-vance-hits-back-at-mitch-mcconnells-appeasing-putin-claim-as-ukraine-accepts-core-terms-of-trump

Bloomberg, M. R. (2025b, November 26). Michael Bloomberg: Ukraine peace deal must be worth the price. Bloomberg Opinion.

Bloomberg News. (2025a, November 26). Witkoff advised Russia on how to pitch Ukraine plan to Trump. https://www.bloomberg.com

CBS News. (2025, November 20). Here’s what’s in the Trump administration’s proposed 28-point Russia-Ukraine peace plan. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-proposed-28-point-russia-ukraine-peace-plan/

Kluth, A. (2025, November 24). Ukraine peace plan is product of White House without a compass. Bloomberg Opinion.

McConnell, M. (2025, November 22). [Statement on Ukraine peace plan]. U.S. Senate. https://x.com/SenMcConnell/status/1991993757303288242

PBS NewsHour. (2025, November 20). White House pushes new 28-point peace plan with concessions Ukraine previously rejected. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/white-house-pushes-new-28-point-peace-plan-with-concessions-ukraine-previously-rejected

Raw Story. (2025, November 22). ‘First to surrender’: GOP lawmaker breaks from Trump with grim warning about his ‘legacy’. https://www.rawstory.com/trump-bacon-legacy-ukraine/

Wicker, R. (2025, November 20). Chairman Wicker statement on Ukraine. U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee. https://www.wicker.senate.gov/2025/11/chairman-wicker-statement-on-ukraine

Note: This analysis is based on four Bloomberg articles published November 24-26, 2025, supplemented by primary source verification through congressional statements, official documents, and independent reporting from other major news organizations. All factual claims have been traced to original sources where possible. Interpretive assessments are clearly distinguished from established facts.

Behind the 28-Point Ukraine Peace Plan: A Fact-Check of Trump’s Negotiations with Russia