Mystery Deepens Over Trump’s 28-Point Ukraine Peace Plan as Conflicting Accounts Emerge

A cloud of confusion and conflicting narratives has descended upon Washington following the leak of a 28-point plan to end the war in Ukraine, with the fundamental question of its authorship pitting U.S. officials against each other and raising alarms among America’s allies.

The document, which outlines a potential roadmap for peace between Ukraine and Russia, became the center of a political firestorm over the weekend. The core of the controversy is not the plan’s contents, but its origin: was it crafted by the Trump administration as a starting point for negotiations, or is it a Russian-authored proposal being passively transmitted by Washington?

The Conflicting Accounts

The mystery erupted into public view following a closed-door briefing for U.S. senators attending the Halifax International Security Forum in Canada on Saturday. According to multiple senators present, Secretary of State Marco Rubio made a startling revelation about the plan’s provenance.

Republican Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and Independent Senator Angus King (I-Maine) provided a consistent account to PBS NewsHour. “He made it very clear to us that we are the recipients of a proposal that was delivered to one of our representatives,” Rounds stated. Senator King was more blunt, telling Politico that Rubio characterized the document as “essentially the wish list of the Russians” and that it was “received from an intermediary,” not authored by the U.S. State Department.

This narrative suggests the Trump administration is acting as a conduit for a plan that aligns closely with Moscow’s strategic goals, a notion that would be highly controversial and could undermine the united front Washington has maintained with Kyiv.

The Aggressive Pushback

Within hours, the State Department launched a forceful and public denial of the senators’ characterization. Officials aggressively pushed back, insisting the proposal was unequivocally authored in Washington.

In a statement, a department spokesperson sought to quash the emerging narrative, asserting, “Any claim that this plan originates from the Kremlin is categorically false. This is a U.S.-drafted framework, developed through our own analysis and diplomatic channels, designed to put forward a viable path to de-escalation.”

This direct contradiction from the administration’s own diplomatic corps creates an unprecedented rift. It leaves two starkly different stories on the table: either high-ranking senators fundamentally misheard or misinterpreted the Secretary of State’s briefing, or the State Department is now engaged in a public relations effort to distance the plan from its politically toxic Russian origins.

The Stakes and the Unanswered Questions

The confusion over the plan’s authorship has immediate and serious consequences:

1. Allied Trust: European partners and Ukraine itself are left wondering who is driving U.S. policy. Is the U.S. negotiating on behalf of the Western alliance, or is it relaying Russian demands?

2. Political Fallout in Washington: The incident exposes deep divisions within the U.S. government and fuels debates over the administration’s approach to the conflict. Critics are already questioning whether the White House is pursuing a policy of “appeasement.”

3. The “Intermediary” Mystery: The identity of the intermediary who supposedly delivered the plan remains unknown, fueling speculation about back-channel communications between Trump officials and Russian representatives.

As the dust settles, the central mystery remains unsolved. With the State Department and members of the U.S. Senate providing irreconcilable accounts, the 28-point plan is now more than a potential peace proposal—it is a Rorschach test revealing deep fissures in American foreign policy and a puzzle that threatens to undermine the credibility of the United States on the world stage. The question, “Who wrote this?” has become as consequential as the plan’s contents themselves.

  Donate Here