Assistance from Claude AI. For fact-checking, see Trump-Zelenskyy Peace Talks at Mar-a-Lago Show Major Progress on Ukraine War Settlement.
Summary
President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met at Mar-a-Lago on December 28, 2025, reporting substantial progress toward ending the Russia-Ukraine war, with negotiators claiming the peace framework is roughly 90-95% complete. Following Trump’s two-and-a-half-hour phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the leaders announced that US-Ukraine security guarantees are 100% agreed, the military dimension is fully settled, and six working documents are nearing finalization. A working group comprising Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, General Razin Caine, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth will continue negotiations with Russian and Ukrainian counterparts, with both sides estimating a deal could be reached within two to three weeks. The most contentious remaining issue involves the territorial status of the Donbas region, which Russia currently occupies, though Trump expressed optimism that even this thorny question could be resolved. Following the bilateral meeting, both presidents participated in a joint call with nine European leaders to coordinate support, and Trump announced plans to host European and Ukrainian delegations in Washington in January to finalize the agreement.
Participants
United States:
- Donald J. Trump – President of the United States
- Marco Rubio – Secretary of State
- Pete Hegseth – Secretary of Defense
- Steve Witkoff – Special Envoy
- Jared Kushner – Senior Advisor
- General Razin Caine – Military Advisor
Ukraine:
- Volodymyr Zelenskyy – President of Ukraine
- Ukrainian delegation including deputy ministers and General Nataf (names partially inaudible in transcript)
European Leaders (participated via conference call):
- Emmanuel Macron – President of France
- Alexander Stubb – President of the Republic of Finland
- Karol Nawrocki – President of the Republic of Poland
- Jonas Gahr Støre – Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Norway
- Giorgia Meloni – Prime Minister of the Italian Republic
- Keir Starmer – Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
- Friedrich Merz – Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany
- Mark Rutte – Secretary General of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization)
- Ursula von der Leyen – President of the European Commission
Peace Framework Progress and Agreement Status
President Trump opened the press conference by characterizing the meeting as “terrific” and emphasizing the progress made following his lengthy conversation with President Putin. Trump noted that the discussion with Putin lasted “over two hours” (later clarified to approximately 2.5 hours) and covered substantive details about ending the conflict. The negotiation represents what both leaders acknowledge as the “most deadly war since World War II, probably the biggest war since World War II.”
President Zelenskyy provided specific percentages for the various components of the peace framework, offering the most detailed public accounting of negotiation progress to date. According to Zelenskyy’s assessment, the 20-point peace plan is “90 percent agreed,” while US-Ukraine security guarantees are “100 percent agreed.” He also stated that US-Europe-Ukraine security guarantees are “almost agreed” and the military dimension is “100 percent agreed.” Additionally, a prosperity plan is “being finalized.” This represents the culmination of intensive negotiations that began in Geneva and continued through two meetings in Miami, a session in Berlin, and the current Mar-a-Lago gathering.
Trump took a slightly more cautious approach when asked about percentages, stating he doesn’t like to assign specific numbers but acknowledged they “could be close to 95 percent” complete. He emphasized that despite the progress, “there are one or two very thorny issues, very tough issues” remaining. Both leaders stressed that this progress represents more than a month of detailed work by their respective negotiating teams.
The framework involves six separate documents that Zelenskyy hopes will be finalized in January. Both presidents expressed confidence that the remaining gaps could be bridged within two to three weeks, though Trump cautioned that “if it went poorly” the timeline could extend or the deal could fail entirely. Trump noted that he has “settled eight wars” during his political career, some of which had persisted for 35 to 37 years, but characterized the Ukraine situation as “a very complex one” requiring more intensive negotiation than previous conflicts he had addressed.
The Donbas Territorial Question: The Most Difficult Issue
The status of the Donbas region emerged as the most contentious unresolved issue in the negotiations. When asked directly about the “free trade zone on Donbas” and territorial separation, President Trump acknowledged that while the word “agreed” was “too strong,” the parties are “getting closer to an agreement on that.” He characterized territorial issues as “one of the big issues” and noted it remains “unresolved, but it’s getting a lot closer.”
Trump provided context for the complexity of the land question, explaining that “some of that land has been taken” by Russian forces, while “some of that land is maybe up for grabs, but it may be taken over the next period of a number of months.” He posed a strategic question to the Ukrainian people: “are you better off making a deal now?” This framing suggests the American negotiating position recognizes the difficult calculus Ukraine faces between accepting current territorial losses versus continuing to fight with uncertain outcomes.
President Zelenskyy emphasized Ukraine’s legal and moral constraints on territorial concessions, stating that Ukraine must “respect our law and our people” and “respect the territory which we control.” He acknowledged that Ukraine and Russia maintain “different positions” on this fundamental question. Zelenskyy explained the Ukrainian position carefully, noting that the land belongs not to one person but “to our nation, for a lot of generations,” suggesting any territorial compromise would carry profound historical and cultural implications.
The referendum question became closely tied to the territorial issue. When asked about the possibility of a popular vote on territorial status, Zelenskyy explained that a referendum could be used for “any kind of points of this plan,” but the decision to use a referendum versus parliamentary approval remains flexible. He noted that “if the plan will be very difficult for our society, very difficult, of course, our society has to choose and has to vote because it’s their land.” This statement indicates Ukraine is prepared to submit particularly controversial aspects of any deal to direct popular approval.
Trump supported the referendum approach, noting that “they’ll probably have to get their plan approved by Parliament or by referendum of the people.” He cited polling showing “91 percent in favor of ending this war,” suggesting Ukrainian public sentiment strongly supports peace even if it requires difficult compromises. However, organizing a referendum presents significant logistical challenges, as Zelenskyy explained, because millions of Ukrainians currently live as refugees in Poland, Germany, and other European countries. These displaced citizens would need to have voting access, requiring substantial “infrastructure” that “can’t be in one day very quickly.”
Ceasefire and Military Arrangements
One revealing exchange concerned whether Russia has agreed to a ceasefire to facilitate a referendum or peace implementation. When asked directly, President Trump stated clearly: “Not a ceasefire.” He explained President Putin’s reasoning: Russia is concerned about stopping military operations and then potentially having to “start again, which is a possibility” if negotiations fail. Putin “doesn’t want to be in that position,” according to Trump, who added “I understand that position.”
This represents a significant potential obstacle to peace implementation. Traditionally, ceasefires precede peace negotiations or referendums, but Putin’s reluctance suggests Russia wants to maintain military pressure during the final negotiation phases. However, Trump expressed confidence that “we’re finding ways that we can get around that,” though he did not specify what alternative arrangements might satisfy both parties.
Trump emphasized his role as a neutral broker seeking “peace” and “stopping the war,” noting that negotiators must “understand the other side” even while advocating for one’s own position. He characterized the ceasefire question as “a problem that’s going to get solved” despite its current unresolved status.
The discussion of military matters also touched on the 100% agreed military dimension that Zelenskyy mentioned. While the specific details of this military framework were not disclosed publicly, the fact that military arrangements are reportedly fully settled suggests substantial progress on questions like troop deployments, demilitarized zones, monitoring mechanisms, and security arrangements. The working group’s inclusion of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and General Razin Caine indicates continued military-technical work will be necessary to implement whatever military provisions have been agreed upon in principle.
Security Guarantees and European Role
President Zelenskyy announced that US-Ukraine security guarantees are “100 percent agreed,” representing a major diplomatic achievement. He also stated that US-Europe-Ukraine security guarantees are “almost agreed.” These guarantees represent Ukraine’s effort to obtain concrete commitments that would deter future Russian aggression, particularly important if Ukraine is required to make territorial concessions that might leave it vulnerable.
When asked directly about security promises, Trump confirmed: “Well, I did, I did.” He explained that “we want to work with Europe and Europe is going to take over a big part of it, as you can imagine.” This division of labor reflects geographic proximity, with Trump noting European nations are “right there” while America is “thousands and thousands of miles” away, “protected by a thing called the Atlantic Ocean.”
Trump emphasized the collaborative nature of security arrangements: “we’re going to help Europe, 100 percent, like they’d help us.” This formulation suggests a burden-sharing arrangement where European nations provide primary security support to Ukraine while the United States backstops European commitments. The structure mirrors NATO’s Article 5 collective defense approach, though the specific mechanisms remain undisclosed.
The joint conference call with nine European leaders served to coordinate this security architecture. Trump noted these leaders “have spent a lot of money on helping Ukraine” and characterized them as doing so “for themselves also, meaning their country, because Ukraine is a very important country for them in particular.” He distinguished between European strategic interests in Ukrainian security and American interests, stating “for us, it’s very important—to me, it’s the lives,” referring to his motivation to end the killing rather than strategic calculations.
Trump announced plans to “host” European leaders and the Ukrainian delegation “in Washington” (or potentially another location) in January to finalize these security arrangements. This gathering would presumably produce formal security guarantee documents that provide the legal and institutional framework for post-war Ukrainian security. Zelenskyy confirmed this timeline, expressing hope that “we will have decisions in January” on “all these documents, six documents.”
The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant
A significant topic of discussion involved the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which Trump described as “probably the biggest in the world, just about the biggest anywhere in the world” (Zelenskyy gently corrected this to “in Europe”). The plant’s status represents both a humanitarian concern and a symbol of potential Russian-Ukrainian cooperation.
Trump reported that the plant issue was discussed “at length today” and characterized its condition as “in pretty good shape.” He noted the facility “can start up immediately, almost immediately” and that this was “one of the things I discussed with President Putin.” Most significantly, Trump revealed that Putin “is actually working with Ukraine on getting it open” and “wants to see that open.”
Trump praised Putin’s restraint, noting “he hasn’t hit it with missiles, hasn’t hit it with anything” despite the plant’s strategic value. Trump characterized Putin’s decision not to target the facility as evidence that “he’s been very good in that sense,” acknowledging “it’s a big danger to do that, for everybody.” The plant remains staffed by approximately 5,000 workers who “have been there for years,” according to Trump, suggesting operational continuity despite the war.
The potential reopening of Zaporizhzhia represents both practical and symbolic importance. Practically, Ukraine faces severe energy shortages, and the plant’s six reactors could provide substantial electrical generation capacity. Symbolically, Russian-Ukrainian cooperation on safely operating the facility demonstrates the possibility of collaboration even amid conflict. Trump emphasized that “they’re working together to try and get it” operational and suggested “it can open very quickly.”
When asked specifically about this cooperation, Trump stated “they could maybe get it open quickly. That’s a big step, when he’s not bombing that plant. It’s a big step.” This suggests the Zaporizhzhia arrangement may serve as a confidence-building measure and preview of post-war cooperation.
Russian Reconstruction Assistance
In a potentially surprising development, Trump disclosed that he discussed Russian responsibility for Ukrainian reconstruction during his call with Putin. When asked whether Russia would contribute to rebuilding Ukraine, Trump confirmed: “I did. I did. They’re going to be helping. Russia is going to be helping.”
Trump went further, stating that “Russia wants to see Ukraine succeed” and characterizing Putin as “very generous in his feeling toward Ukraine succeeding.” Specifically, Trump said Putin discussed “supplying energy, electricity and other things at very low prices” to Ukraine as part of post-war arrangements. This represents a significant shift from purely military and territorial discussions to economic cooperation frameworks.
Trump acknowledged this might “sound a little strange” given the ongoing war, but framed it as Putin’s forward-looking perspective on post-conflict relations. The suggestion of Russian energy assistance at subsidized prices could address Ukraine’s critical infrastructure needs while providing Russia with economic leverage and integration with its neighbor.
Trump attributed these “good things” partially to the extended phone call but noted “they were in the works for two weeks with Steve and with Jared and Marco and everybody,” indicating the reconstruction discussions emerged from the detailed working-group negotiations rather than spontaneous conversation with Putin.
This reconstruction framework potentially serves multiple purposes: it provides Putin with a face-saving narrative that Russia’s actions ultimately benefit Ukraine, it addresses Ukraine’s desperate need for rebuilding resources, and it creates economic interdependence that might stabilize any peace agreement. However, the details of what “helping” means in concrete terms—whether grants, loans, or commercial arrangements—remain unspecified.
Working Groups and Implementation Timeline
President Trump announced the formation of a formal working group to continue negotiations and implement any eventual agreement. The American side will include Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, General Razin Caine, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and potentially Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Trump praised this team extensively, stating “I don’t think anybody could do it” and characterizing their work as bringing negotiations to a point “nobody would have thought was possible.”
President Zelenskyy confirmed Ukraine’s negotiating team includes officials who “worked with Steve and Jared,” specifically naming Deputy Minister [name inaudible] and General Nataf. Zelenskyy expressed confidence in this team’s ability to continue productive work, noting “they know what to do.”
Critically, Trump emphasized that “that working group, by the way, importantly, will also then be working with Russia.” He noted that working only amongst themselves “doesn’t really solve much of a problem,” indicating the working group will serve as the formal trilateral negotiating mechanism. This structure suggests ongoing rather than episodic negotiations, with professional diplomatic teams working through remaining issues rather than relying solely on leader-to-leader communications.
When asked about timeline, Trump stated “if it went really well, you know, maybe a few weeks” to reach a final agreement. However, he cautioned that “if it went poorly, longer. And if it went really poorly, it’s not going to happen.” Zelenskyy offered his “estimation is two, three weeks” for finalizing agreements, aligning with Trump’s optimistic scenario.
Trump provided important context for why this negotiation has proven complex despite his track record of quickly resolving other conflicts. He noted he “settled eight wars, some were—some were going on for 35 years and we got them settled in a couple of days. Some of them, one was going on for 37 years. I settled it in one day. But this is a very complex one.” This acknowledgment suggests the Russia-Ukraine war involves more intractable issues than Trump’s previous mediation efforts.
Both leaders acknowledged the possibility of failure. When asked what happens if negotiations “sputter” in coming weeks, Trump answered bluntly: “They keep fighting and they keep dying. No good.” He emphasized that neither side wants this outcome, stating “he doesn’t want it to happen. President Putin doesn’t want it to happen either.”
Trilateral Summit Prospects
When asked about a potential trilateral meeting bringing together Trump, Zelenskyy, and Putin, Trump responded positively: “I see that happening, sure, at the right time.” This represents the first public confirmation that such a summit is under consideration, though Trump did not specify timing or location.
Trump characterized his recent interactions with Putin extensively, referencing their history during Trump’s first term when both leaders navigated what Trump repeatedly called the “Russia, Russia, Russia, hoax”—referring to investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Trump stated that despite this political controversy, “we didn’t get into wars and we didn’t get into problems,” though he lamented “we weren’t able to trade very much or any of that, which was a shame.”
Trump praised Russia’s natural resources, noting “they have great land, great minerals and other things and we have things that they want very badly,” suggesting economic cooperation could follow any peace agreement. He characterized his relationship with Putin as strong despite the political obstacles during his first term, stating “despite that, we got along” and expressing confidence: “I think we’re going to get there. I know—I know him very well and I think we’re going to get there.”
When pressed on whether he and Putin discussed specific details about a trilateral meeting location or timing, Trump deflected with humor, noting he was “on the phone with him for almost, I guess 2.5 hours” and “we discussed a lot of things. We didn’t talk about the weather. We weren’t talking about how—what a beautiful day it is in Palm Beach, Florida.” This suggests logistical arrangements for a summit remain under discussion but have not been finalized.
A trilateral summit would represent the culmination of the negotiation process, presumably occurring only after working groups resolve remaining substantive issues. The symbolism of Trump bringing the two warring leaders together would serve both as diplomatic theater and practical mechanism for finalizing agreement details and building personal commitment to implementation.
Trump’s Counterfactual Claims About the War’s Origins
President Trump made repeated claims that the Russia-Ukraine war would not have occurred had he won the 2020 presidential election, stating “if the election weren’t rigged and stolen, 2020, you wouldn’t have had this war, would have never happened.” He emphasized that during his four years as president, the war “never was even thought to happen” and “didn’t happen for four years.”
Trump attributed this to his personal relationship with Putin, noting “I spoke with President Putin. I got along with him very well” and “we’d talk about Ukraine.” He characterized Ukraine as “the apple of his eye, but he wasn’t going to do anything about it. He didn’t do anything about it until I was gone.” Trump blamed the war’s outbreak on “really bad statements were made by people—by a lot of people, I guess, but by a certain president that we had who was a disaster,” referring to President Biden without naming him directly.
These claims reflect Trump’s longstanding position that his personal diplomacy and relationship with Putin served as a deterrent to Russian aggression. However, the claims remain contested by foreign policy analysts who point to multiple factors influencing Putin’s decision to invade in February 2022, including NATO expansion discussions, Ukraine’s western orientation, and Russian domestic politics. Trump did not specify what “bad statements” by Biden triggered the invasion, leaving his causal argument somewhat vague.
Trump also referenced the “Russia, Russia, Russia hoax, which was a total hoax” multiple times, referring to investigations into Russian election interference and potential coordination with his 2016 campaign. He stated Putin would ask him “what is going on over there” regarding the investigations, with both leaders knowing it “was a total hoax, as he knew and as I knew.” Trump argued these investigations prevented beneficial trade and cooperation between the U.S. and Russia during his first term, though he maintained “despite that, we got along.”
American Casualties and Humanitarian Concerns
When asked about nearly 100 American citizens who have died fighting in Ukraine, Trump responded with measured sympathy: “Well, look, I mean the message is so obvious. It’s, what a shame. They died in a foreign country and some are celebrated people. They’re very celebrated. But so sad that a thing like that would happen.”
This acknowledgment addressed the reality that numerous Americans have volunteered to fight alongside Ukrainian forces, some gaining recognition for their service. Trump’s characterization of their deaths as occurring “in a foreign country” reflects his broader foreign policy perspective prioritizing American interests narrowly defined, though he recognized their sacrifice as tragic.
Trump emphasized repeatedly that his primary motivation for pursuing peace centers on preventing further loss of life. He stated “I’m doing it to save lives” and noted “we’re losing, you know, massive numbers of people, the biggest by far since World War II.” When discussing the possibility of visiting Ukraine to address their parliament, Trump said “if it would help save 25,000 lives a month or whatever it may be, I would certainly be willing to do that.”
This “25,000 lives a month” figure represents Trump’s estimate of combined casualties from both sides, though he did not specify whether this includes only deaths or also wounded. Independent estimates of casualties in the Russia-Ukraine war vary widely, with both governments treating precise figures as sensitive information. Trump’s use of this number emphasizes the humanitarian urgency he brings to the negotiation.
President Zelenskyy acknowledged that Ukraine has “to respect our law and our people” in any agreement but also emphasized Ukrainian willingness to end the conflict. He noted that Ukrainian forces have “been very brave. They fought very hard and continue to fight very hard and do tremendous damage” to Russian forces, framing Ukrainian military performance as creating leverage for negotiations rather than requiring indefinite continuation.
Financial Arrangements and American Investment
Trump drew a contrast between his administration’s approach and the previous administration’s financial support for Ukraine, stating “we’re not spending any money” while “Biden gave $350 billion away.” This characterization frames American assistance to Ukraine under Biden as grants rather than loans or investments, though the actual assistance included various financial mechanisms including military aid, economic support, and loan guarantees.
Trump revealed that Zelenskyy “was nice enough to give us a contract to take out rare earth and things,” referring to mineral extraction rights in Ukraine. He noted “we have a contract” and “we appreciated that. He was very good. But—but we’ll see how that all works out.” This disclosure suggests the Trump administration has negotiated commercial arrangements that provide American companies access to Ukrainian natural resources, potentially including the rare earth elements essential for modern electronics and military applications.
The mineral rights arrangement represents a quid pro quo where Ukraine grants economic concessions to the United States in exchange for American support in peace negotiations and security guarantees. Trump’s comment “we’ll see how that works out” suggests these arrangements remain contingent on successful peace implementation and may face legal or practical obstacles to execution.
This transactional approach to foreign policy aligns with Trump’s business background and his emphasis on American economic interests. Rather than framing support for Ukraine purely in strategic or humanitarian terms, Trump highlights tangible economic benefits that justify American diplomatic engagement. The contrast with the Biden administration’s approach underscores fundamentally different philosophies about American foreign assistance and international engagement.
Press Questions and Notable Exchanges
The press conference included numerous revealing exchanges beyond the prepared statements. When a Ukrainian journalist asked about Trump’s “nuclear plan,” Trump discussed the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant situation, demonstrating his willingness to engage substantively with technical questions from international media.
When asked about visiting Ukraine, Trump stated “I’d have no problem with doing it” and noted “I’ve offered to go and speak to their parliament.” Zelenskyy immediately interjected “You’re welcome, Mr. President, always,” demonstrating the warm personal relationship the two leaders have developed. Trump acknowledged this invitation but suggested such a visit might not be “really necessary” unless it would materially advance the peace process.
A lighter moment occurred at the press conference’s conclusion when Trump joked about Zelenskyy’s reaction to Mar-a-Lago, claiming Zelenskyy “walked in, he said, this place is gorgeous. I don’t think he wants to go to the White House anymore. That’s the problem.” Zelenskyy good-naturedly responded “I’m ready to go to White House. Always,” maintaining diplomatic protocol while accepting the humor. Trump concluded by acknowledging “the White House is a very special place and so is this,” balancing his pride in his private property with respect for the presidency.
Throughout the questioning, Trump demonstrated detailed knowledge of negotiation specifics while maintaining strategic ambiguity on certain sensitive points. When pressed on percentages or specific commitments, he often deflected to broader themes while still providing substantive responses. Zelenskyy similarly balanced transparency about negotiation progress with discretion about positions that might weaken Ukrainian leverage.
The dynamic between the two leaders appeared collaborative rather than hierarchical, with Zelenskyy offering clarifications and additional details rather than simply deferring to Trump. This suggests a genuine partnership in the negotiation rather than Ukrainian capitulation to American pressure, though the power asymmetry between the countries inevitably shapes the relationship.
MLA Citation
“Press Conference: Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy Hold a Joint Press Event – December 28, 2025.” Factbase, Factbase, 28 Dec. 2025.