Sec. of State Marco Rubio Insists the U.S. Authored Ukraine Plan. Senators Said He Told Them Otherwise.

The State Department is denying claims that a 28-point peace plan presented to Ukraine by the U.S. was authored entirely by Russia after a bipartisan group of senators said Saturday that Secretary of State Marco Rubio distanced the U.S. from the plan in conversations with them.

“What I can share with you is what we’ve received today from the secretary, and what he told us was that this was not the American proposal,” Republican Sen. Mike Rounds, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee told reporters on Saturday at the Halifax Security Conference.

“It is not our recommendation. It is not our peace plan. It is a proposal that was received, and as an intermediary, we have made arrangements to share it — and we did not release it. It was leaked,” Rounds said.

Rounds’ comments were in direct contradiction with statements made by President Donald Trump, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, and Rubio who have all represented the plan as U.S. one. Rounds’ comments were denied by both Rubio and the State Department.

“The peace proposal was authored by the U.S.,” Rubio wrote on X. “It is offered as a strong framework for ongoing negotiations. It is based on input from the Russian side. But it is also based on previous and ongoing input from Ukraine.”

A state department spokesperson called any other characterization of the plan “blatantly false.”

There are competing narratives about the plan’s origin; Reuters reports that the plan was the result of a meeting between Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev. The White House has said the plan was crafted by the U.S. with input from both Russia and Ukraine. But Rounds, independent Sen. Angus King, and Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen indicated that in their conversations with Rubio, the secretary suggested otherwise. Rounds said the Secretary gave him permission to relay their conversation.

Rounds went as far as to suggest that Rubio’s account of events made more sense, because the document “doesn’t look like, normally, something that would come out of our government, particularly the way that it was written. It looked more like it was written in Russian to begin with.”

Sen. King, an independent, said he also spoke with Rubio about the plan.

“This has been an extraordinary weekend…because of the communication, as was mentioned today, from Secretary Rubio and the leaked 28 point plan, which, according to Secretary Rubio, is not the administration’s position,” King told reporters at the conference. “It is essentially the wish list of the Russians that is now being presented to the Europeans and to the Ukrainians.”

In a statement Sunday, Sen. King said that it has now been established that the plan has been endorsed by the U.S. government.

“I hope that after consultation with Ukraine and the Europeans, a more fair and responsible agreement will emerge. Everyone wants peace and for the conflict to end— most especially the Ukrainian people who have borne the brunt of this unconscionable attack on their country—but that peace must be both just and lasting,” he said. “The proposed plan is certainly not just, and, if history is any guide, is unlikely to be lasting.”

Shaheen and Rounds did not respond to a request for comment or answer questions about the discrepancy between the administration’s public posture and their understanding of what Rubio had told them. Rounds acknowledged in a post to X that the State Department is taking input from both Russia and Ukraine.

The debacle speaks to potential fractures within the Trump administration about how to negotiate an end to the war between Russia and Ukraine — though Trump said he would bring the war to a conclusion swiftly, a path to ending the war has so far eluded the Trump administration.

The back and forth also represents a remarkable divergence in messaging between the State Department and several top senators on the Armed Services Committee speaking to American interests while in Halifax.

Details of the plan were first reported as a U.S. plan by Axios on Nov. 18 . It has since drawn scrutiny from both Democrats and Republicans as being overly acquiescent to Russian demands — for example, requiring Ukraine to surrender significant territory, cut its military, and give up some weapons.

“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,” Republican Sen. Roger Wicker, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a Ukraine ally, said in a statement. “The size and disposition of Ukraine’s armed forces is a sovereign choice for its government and people.”

Since the plan became public, the White House has made attempts to spin their intentions, first presenting it as a plan that Ukraine must accept, then as a plan designed chiefly to bring Ukraine to the negotiating table, and now is a plan that is simply one of many.Trump said Saturday that it was not his final plan if Ukraine did not accept it.

The proposal has been denounced by both Ukrainian and European Union leaders.

Reuters reported that the plan is controversial even among Trump administration officials, and that there are parts of the 28-point plan that Rubio did not agree with. Trump himself wavers on the issue by the week.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.