A U.S.-proposed Ukraine peace plan is encountering mounting resistance inside the Republican Party, with some of the GOP's most influential national-security voices harshly criticizing the framework as naïve, dangerous, and unfairly coercive toward Kyiv.
Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., the powerful chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and one of President Donald Trump's closest allies on defense policy, offered a sharp rebuke to the administration Friday for what he called was a "so-called" peace plan,
Wicker, the latest of these critics and long regarded as one of Congress' strongest supporters of robust U.S. military assistance to Kyiv, issued an unusually forceful denunciation of the proposal in a post on X.
"This so-called 'peace plan' has real problems, and I am highly skeptical it will achieve peace," Wicker wrote. "Ukraine should not be forced to give up its lands to one of the world's most flagrant war criminals in Vladimir Putin.
"The size and disposition of Ukraine's armed forces is a sovereign choice for its government and people. And any assurances provided to Putin should not reward his malign behavior or undermine the security of the United States or allies.
"In particular, any suggestion that we can pursue arms control with a serial liar and killer like Putin should be treated with great skepticism."
Wicker's comments land at a moment of heightened anxiety in Kyiv, where officials are privately expressing alarm that Washington is presenting the plan as a "do or die" ultimatum.
Multiple reports indicate U.S. officials have warned Ukraine that rejecting the proposal could jeopardize future American military or intelligence aid — an unprecedented level of leverage being applied to a wartime ally that has depended on Western assistance to hold off Russia's full-scale invasion.
If accurate, such a threat could spark a backlash within the conservative coalition that helped elect Trump.
Despite growing skepticism of U.S. foreign interventions, a significant segment of the Republican base remains deeply supportive of Ukraine's fight against what they view as Putin's unprovoked and expansionist aggression.
A perception that Washington is strong-arming Kyiv into concessions could inflame those tensions, particularly if the peace terms are seen as rewarding Russian territorial gains.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, one of the most influential conservative commentators in the country, blasted the plan as nothing less than a "surrender agreement."
Gingrich suggested the proposed agreement was American "betrayal" and urged Ukraine to "float it and not accept it," arguing that any settlement that validates Putin's occupation would embolden the Kremlin and undermine U.S. global leadership.
His remarks add to the growing chorus of conservative voices challenging the wisdom of forcing Kyiv toward compromise while Russian forces still occupy large swaths of Ukrainian territory.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., another prominent Republican national-security hawk, offered a more measured but still unmistakably critical response.
"While there are many good ideas in the proposed Russia-Ukraine peace plan, there are several areas that are very problematic and can be made better," Graham posted on X.
"The goal of any peace deal is to end the war honorably and justly — and not create new conflict."
Graham also raised an issue largely absent from earlier drafts of peace proposals but of deep moral and political significance: the fate of the nearly 20,000 Ukrainian children kidnapped by Russian forces, a crime documented by international investigators and cited in the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant for Putin.
"This issue has to be addressed in any negotiated settlement," he wrote.
Together, the statements from Wicker, Graham, and Gingrich signal a serious challenge for the administration as it attempts to reshape U.S.-Ukraine policy.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.