Leaked recordings of Steve Witkoff, US president Donald Trump’s special envoy for peace missions, have triggered calls in Congress for his dismissal and intensified European concern that Washington’s Ukraine diplomacy is skewed towards Moscow’s interests.
The so-called “Witkoff tapes”, published by Bloomberg, capture the envoy advising a senior Kremlin official on how to present a Ukraine peace plan in a way most likely to appeal to Trump.
In a recorded call on 14 October with Yuri Ushakov, Vladimir Putin’s top foreign policy aide, Witkoff is heard suggesting that “peace” will require Russian control of the Donetsk region and possibly further Ukrainian territory. He also proposes that a Trump–Putin conversation should be arranged before President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s visit to the White House, and coaches Ushakov on how to flatter Trump as a “man of peace” in order to secure his backing for the plan.
The leak has produced an unusually sharp reaction on Capitol Hill. Republican congressman Don Bacon said Witkoff “fully favours the Russians” and “cannot be trusted to lead these negotiations”, asking pointedly whether “a Russian paid agent would do less” and calling for him to be fired. Brian Fitzpatrick, another Republican, described the episode as “a major problem” and urged an end to “ridiculous side shows and secret meetings”, insisting that Secretary of State Marco Rubio be allowed to conduct policy “fairly and objectively”. Democrat Ted Lieu went further, branding Witkoff an “actual traitor” in a social media post.
Trump, by contrast, has moved quickly to defend his envoy. Speaking aboard Air Force One, he characterised Witkoff’s approach as “a very standard form of negotiation”, saying the envoy “has got to sell this to Ukraine” and “sell Ukraine to Russia”, and suggesting that Witkoff was likely offering similar messaging advice to Kyiv. Former ambassador Richard Grenell, now Trump’s special missions envoy, has argued that the unidentified leaker, rather than Witkoff, represents the real national security risk.
The controversy comes on top of earlier reporting that Witkoff co-drafted a 28-point peace framework with Kremlin-linked financier Kirill Dmitriev during talks in Miami. According to US and British media, the initial version aligned closely with long-standing Russian demands: major territorial concessions in Donbas and Crimea, limits on Ukraine’s armed forces, restrictions on Western weapons, and a de facto bar on NATO membership.
British outlets have framed the tapes as evidence of structural weaknesses in the Trump administration’s handling of high-stakes diplomacy. The Times and other London-based titles have highlighted Witkoff’s lack of formal diplomatic experience and the extent to which a private-sector dealmaker has been placed at the centre of negotiations over European security. Commentators argue that an envoy operating with limited institutional oversight has proved vulnerable to manipulation by Moscow and has underestimated the strategic consequences of his concessions for Ukraine and for NATO states.
Particular attention has been paid to Witkoff’s reported description of Putin as not a “bad guy” and his apparent readiness to base judgements on personal rapport rather than formal security analysis. European analysts see this as symptomatic of a personalised diplomatic style in which complex questions of war, territory and alliance are filtered through the preferences of a small circle around Trump and Putin, rather than through established channels involving the State Department, the Pentagon and European partners.
Sky News has gone so far as to describe Witkoff as a “useful idiot” whose actions have increased risks for Ukraine and Europe. The Daily Telegraph and other British commentators have focused on the section of the transcript in which Witkoff advises Ushakov on how best to “shower Trump with praise” to secure favourable decisions on the peace track, arguing that this raises questions not only about the direction of US policy but also about the robustness of the process by which it is being made.
The tapes have also prompted scrutiny of the origins of the US peace plan itself. Western reporting, echoed by officials, suggests that key passages in the draft read as if translated from Russian, and that a Russian-authored document was handed to US interlocutors in mid-October and then reworked by Witkoff and his team. Senator Angus King has been quoted as saying that Rubio privately described the 28-point draft as a Russian “wish list”, although the secretary of state has publicly rejected that characterisation.
Moscow’s response has been ambivalent. Ushakov has effectively confirmed that the conversations took place, attributing the leak to “surveillance” and mentioning that some discussions were held over less secure channels such as WhatsApp. Dmitriev, by contrast, has publicly dismissed the published transcript of his call with Ushakov as “fake”. Russian officials have condemned the disclosure as a hostile act intended to derail peace efforts, even as Russian forces continue offensive operations in Ukraine.
With Trump still planning to send Witkoff to Moscow, and Ukraine preparing for further talks on a revised, less concessionary framework, the future of the envoy’s role is uncertain. What is clear is that the “Witkoff tapes” have turned a previously opaque back-channel into a public political test: for Congress, over how far it will tolerate informal diplomacy that appears to track Kremlin preferences; for European capitals, over how much faith to place in Washington’s current approach; and for Trump himself, over whether he continues to invest in an envoy now widely portrayed by critics as compromised.
