Why This Article Was Fact-Checked
This article was flagged by a reader who questioned why former President Donald Trump hasn’t detailed specific actions to achieve a negotiated peace in Ukraine. Given Trump’s intense commentary following Russian drone attacks on Kyiv and contradictory messaging on sanctions, we took a closer look to investigate the accuracy, context, and completeness of the claims presented.
Historical Context
The Russian invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022 and has triggered global condemnation along with sweeping sanctions imposed by Western governments. Former President Trump, both during and after his term, has made varied statements about Vladimir Putin and the conflict—ranging from critical to unusually positive. His latest shift in tone, referring to Putin as “crazy,” signals a potential pivot in how the U.S. might approach peace negotiations under his influence. But ambiguity remains about what actions, if any, Trump is actually committing to.
Fact-Check: Examining Key Claims
Claim #1: “Trump warned that Moscow risked new sanctions.”
This claim is partially accurate but missing critical context. Trump has recently stated he is “absolutely considering” new sanctions on Russia in response to the recent drone attacks on Kyiv, reported by sources such as The Wall Street Journal and CNN. However, these statements fall short of constituting a formal policy proposal. More importantly, Trump offered no specifics on what these sanctions would entail. Furthermore, Trump’s prior caution surrounding “devastating” sanctions on Russian banks indicates a tendency to avoid economic measures that could escalate tensions. Therefore, while Trump has floated the idea, the article omits the fact that no concrete sanction package has been proposed at the time of writing.
Claim #2: “Russia’s attacks continue despite a phone call between Trump and Putin where Putin agreed to ‘immediately’ start ceasefire talks.”
There is insufficient evidence to confirm that Vladimir Putin agreed to “immediately” begin ceasefire negotiations following a phone call with Donald Trump. No official readouts from the Kremlin or U.S. government sources support this claim. The only record comes from Trump’s Truth Social account, where he alleged that an agreement was made. Meanwhile, Russian military actions—including a drone barrage that killed at least 13 people—contradict the notion of an imminent ceasefire. Without confirmation from both parties involved in the call, the credibility of this claim remains questionable.
Claim #3: “Trump has been clear he wants to see a negotiated peace deal.”
This statement, attributed to Trump’s press secretary Karoline Leavitt, is technically true but oversimplifies Trump’s positioning. While Trump has verbally endorsed peace talks and criticized the ongoing war, he has not put forward a structured framework or diplomatic plan to achieve peace. His public messaging has largely focused on criticizing President Biden rather than laying out detailed proposals. According to a review of public statements and media coverage from sources like Reuters and The New York Times, there is no record of an articulated Trump-backed peace initiative as of May 27, 2025.
Claim #4: “Trump’s tough rhetoric represents a major shift from his previous attitude toward Putin.”
This claim is accurate and supported by historical analysis. During his presidency, Trump repeatedly praised Vladimir Putin, calling him a “strong leader” and expressing admiration. Trump’s reluctance to criticize Putin publicly, even amid intelligence reports of Russia meddling in U.S. elections, was widely reported by outlets such as BBC News. The article correctly highlights a noticeable change in tone, especially with Trump calling Putin “crazy” and accusing him of risking catastrophic retaliation. This rhetorical pivot suggests a break from Trump’s previous restraint—but the article does not clarify whether the change will be matched by policy action.
Conclusion
The article captures Trump’s increasingly critical tone toward Putin and Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine, but fails to clarify important nuances. While Trump has publicly endorsed the concept of a peace deal and hinted at sanctions, he has not unveiled any comprehensive diplomatic or punitive strategies. The claim about Putin agreeing to ceasefire talks remains unverified, and the article does not question the lack of follow-through. Despite these gaps, the shifts in rhetoric are consistent with publicly available statements. Overall, the article is mostly accurate but leans on ambiguity and incomplete context, which may overstate Trump’s actual policy intent.
Take the Next Step
Download the DBUNK app to check facts in real-time and protect yourself against misinformation. Join thousands of readers who trust DBUNK for verified insights. Follow us on social media and request your own fact-check directly in the app—for free!
