HALIFAX, Nova Scotia — A group of U.S. senators who disapprove of President Donald Trump’s strategy to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict said on Saturday that Secretary of State Marco Rubio privately informed them the peace plan being promoted by Trump is essentially a Russian “wish list,” not a document representing official U.S. positions.
However, a spokesperson for the State Department immediately rejected the lawmakers’ account, calling their statements “blatantly false.”
Rubio Pushes Back Publicly
Shortly after, Rubio took the unusual step of commenting online, implying the senators misinterpreted what he said.
He emphasized again that Washington stands behind the proposal, despite widespread criticism that the plan heavily favors Moscow’s interests.
This dispute created a confusing and somewhat embarrassing situation for a peace initiative already facing heavy scrutiny and an uncertain path forward.
Background on the 28-Point Peace Plan
According to the White House, the leaked 28-point peace framework was developed over a month through coordination between Rubio, Trump envoy Steve Witkoff, and contributions from both Ukrainian and Russian sources.
The plan includes several concessions historically demanded by Russia — especially territorial compromises that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly refused. Trump insists Ukraine should approve the plan by late next week.
At a security event in Canada, Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota argued the proposal “looked like it was originally written in Russian” and said the administration wanted to use it only as a starting point rather than taking responsibility for its current form.
Senators Describe Their Call With Rubio
The senators explained that Rubio contacted them while traveling to Geneva for further talks on the proposal. Independent Sen.
Angus King of Maine shared that Rubio told them directly the document was “not the administration’s plan” but rather a Russian-preferred version of a settlement.
Standing together at a press conference, the bipartisan group — all seasoned lawmakers deeply involved in foreign policy — stressed that Rubio described the proposal very differently on the call than he later did in public.
But online, Rubio insisted:
“The peace proposal was authored by the U.S.… It is based on input from the Russian side and also on ongoing input from Ukraine.”
State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott again dismissed the senators’ claims as “blatantly false.”
Critics Say the Plan Rewards Russian Aggression
During discussions at the Halifax International Security Forum, lawmakers warned that accepting the proposal would embolden Russia and send a troubling message to other aggressive governments.
King stated bluntly:
“It rewards aggression… Russia has no moral, political, legal, or ethical claim to eastern Ukraine.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin reacted positively, suggesting on Friday that the U.S.-backed plan could become the basis for a final settlement if America convinces Ukraine and Europe to support it.
Zelenskyy did not reject it outright but emphasized fairness, promising Ukraine would “work calmly” with the U.S. during what he called one of the most critical moments in the nation’s history.
Tensions at the Halifax Security Forum
The Halifax International Security Forum, now in its 17th year, draws around 300 global participants, including senators, military leaders, diplomats, and policy experts.
This year’s event was notable because the Trump administration barred U.S. defense officials from attending think-tank-organized events, including those at the forum.
Despite this, many senators traveled to Halifax — partly due to strained U.S.-Canada relations. Trump’s trade war and controversial remarks suggesting Canada should become the “51st U.S. state” have angered many Canadians. As a result, fewer Canadians are visiting the United States, hurting tourism in border states such as New Hampshire, represented by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen.
The dispute over who truly authored and supports the Trump-backed peace plan has created significant confusion among lawmakers, foreign partners, and global observers.
With senators claiming Rubio described the proposal as a Russian-favored document and Rubio publicly denying it, the controversy further complicates international efforts to secure a stable end to the Russia-Ukraine war.
As both nations confront one of the most challenging periods in modern history, clarity and transparency from U.S. leadership will be essential in shaping any real path toward peace.
