U.S. Officials Meet Sanctioned Russian Envoy, Raise Alarm Over Ukraine Plan

Multiple U.S. officials and lawmakers raised alarms after representatives associated with the Trump administration, including special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, met in late October in Miami with Kirill Dmitriev, the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund and a Russian official under U.S. sanctions. Reuters reported that participants discussed drafting a 28 point plan intended to end the war in Ukraine, setting off debate about who authored the proposal and whether it reflects Russian negotiating aims.

Critics inside the U.S. government and on Capitol Hill said the meeting appeared to sidestep normal interagency review and diplomatic channels. Elements described in reporting and by officials familiar with early drafts bear resemblance to long standing Russian demands, including territorial concessions by Ukraine, formal recognition of Crimea as part of Russia, and limits on Ukraine joining NATO. Those provisions, if enacted, would fundamentally alter Western policy goals and Ukrainian sovereignty.

The encounter has reignited questions about the legal and procedural implications of private discussions with a sanctioned Russian official. Dmitriev remains designated under U.S. sanctions, and his presence in talks with American political figures prompted scrutiny from lawmakers who argued that such engagements could undermine U.S. leverage and complicate official diplomacy. Officials said there was uncertainty about who drafted the 28 point plan and whether any Russian language or demands were incorporated into the text under consideration.

Senators and other Capitol Hill figures described portions of the proposed plan as problematic and potentially favoring Russian interests. Some members pointed to material that the State Department had previously rejected, framing the Miami discussions as an attempt to reintroduce discredited proposals through informal channels. Others urged clarity about the role of private envoys and political appointees when national security policy is at stake.

Reactions among U.S. and Ukrainian officials who consulted on the proposal were varied, according to reporting. Some U.S. officials emphasized that any credible settlement must protect Ukraine's territorial integrity and be negotiated through established government processes. Ukrainian sources expressed alarm at reports that the draft included concessions they had repeatedly rejected as non starter conditions for peace.

Policy analysts said the episode underscores tensions between private diplomacy and institutional oversight in foreign policy. Bypassing interagency review can produce competing narratives and diminish the coherence of U.S. strategy, they noted, while opaque back channel talks risk undercutting allied coordination and congressional prerogatives on matters of war and peace.

The meeting has added momentum to calls for greater transparency and oversight from Congress and within the executive branch. Lawmakers signaled they would seek answers about who participated, what was proposed, and whether any formal U.S. objectives were compromised. For policymakers and the public, the Miami discussions have raised a fundamental question about how the United States manages its negotiating posture and protects democratic accountability in high stakes foreign policy decisions.