Zelensky/Trump Fallout: What's at Stake for America

by Elise Labott, an Edward R. Murrow Press Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations

Friday's Oval Office confrontation between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky was the public unveiling of America's new alignment with an authoritarian power over its democratic allies.

When President Zelensky arrived at the White House, he wasn't just fighting for Ukraine. He was standing at the fault line of a seismic shift in American foreign policy that has the potential to reshape our democracy in ways few Americans yet comprehend.

"Everything Vladimir Putin has ever wanted since he suffered the humiliation of the collapse of the Soviet Union came full circle today," former Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said in an interview with MSNBC following the meeting.

This shift didn't happen overnight. For years, Trump has shown a particular affection for Putin that goes beyond his general admiration for strongmen. When a reporter Friday asked what would happen if Russia violated a potential ceasefire agreement, Trump's response was revealing: "They respect me," he thundered, before claiming he and Putin shared a bond through the "phony witch hunt" of the Russia investigation. These statements didn’t represent a strategic calculation about American interests—it was an emotional attachment to Putin himself.

What's really at stake for Americans

The consequences of the relationship between Trump and Putin stretch beyond Friday’s awkward meeting.

The rules-based international system that's being dismantled was the foundation of American prosperity and security for generations. When smaller nations can't rely on the rules we agreed to play by, they will then align themselves with powers that can ensure their security. And those new alliances rarely benefit American interests.

To be fair, there are potential benefits to improved US-Russia relations, including cooperation on nuclear arms control, counterterrorism and global health challenges. Economically, Russian investment could flow into American markets, and US companies might gain access to Russia's energy and mineral resources. Some strategists even argue that drawing Russia away from China would serve America's long-term geopolitical interests in balancing rising Chinese power.

But these theoretical benefits must be weighed against the concrete realities of what could happen. For example:

The collapse of intelligence sharing. European intelligence officials are already reassessing what information they can safely share with American counterparts. Tulsi Gabbard, who is now in charge of the intelligence community, has consistently echoed Kremlin talking points. This isn't paranoia. Intelligence officials remember all too well how in 2017, Trump revealed highly classified intelligence about ISIS to the Russian foreign minister, compromising a sensitive arrangement with a US partner who hadn't authorized sharing that information.

Diplomatic channels being weaponized for espionage. Russia is eagerly pursuing talks to restore its diplomatic presence in the US, something that Western intelligence officials describe as a "priority" for rebuilding Moscow's spy networks.

Speaking to CNN, Congressional officials familiar with previous Russian "diplomat” expulsions say that the return of these operatives, who were actually spies, is “hugely concerning,” and "absolutely ludicrous given how endangering this would be to US national security."

Our elections will remain vulnerable. As the former Director of National Intelligence confirmed to reporters, Russian operations targeting the 2024 election were "more sophisticated than in prior election cycles," specifically targeting swing states with deepfakes and AI-generated content. Russia also used real influencers, YouTubers, and sites intended to mimic newspapers like the Washington Post to spread Russian government propaganda. These people and websites helped fuel socially divisive narratives and election interference operations that will only expand when they are welcomed rather than decried.

The setup that Zelensky couldn't escape

What makes the Trump-Zelensky showdown particularly troubling is how some people feel it deliberately appears to have been orchestrated. Senator Chris Murphy, who met with Zelensky before the Oval Office meeting, described it as "a setup" from the beginning.

"All these lies are Trump's pretext to sign a deal with Russia that hands Ukraine to Putin," Murphy wrote. "Zelensky, who's been cut out of the talks, knows what Trump and Putin are scheming. A 'ceasefire' without any guarantee for Ukraine's future security is a trap."

Former US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, said that, “There is no question this was a setup.”

Even Trump ally Senator Lindsey Graham said that he spoke with Zelensky prior to the meeting, and urged him “not to take the bait,” suggesting that he anticipated rancor in front of the cameras.

Zelensky couldn't afford to sit silently while Trump peddled Russian revisionist history—not when Ukrainian lives and his nation's existence were at stake. Yet when he tried to point out that Putin has violated previous agreements, Vance launched his attack, accusing Zelensky of being "disrespectful" to "litigate in front of the American media."

The strength of democracy vs. the mirage of strongman rule

In Russia, Putin has created a system where elections exist but don't matter, where media operates but can't criticize, where courts function but don't deliver justice, and where wealth accumulates, but only to those with political connections. It's the shell of democracy without its substance.

When former National Security Adviser John Bolton, who is no dove on foreign policy, calls Trump's treatment of Zelensky "a catastrophic mistake for America's national security," he is not just worried about geopolitics or diplomatic niceties. He understands that embracing authoritarian methods to achieve short-term wins inevitably corrupts the system itself.

The Oval Office confrontation revealed a fundamental choice: do we want America to be a country where truth matters more than loyalty, where laws constrain even the powerful, and where alliances are built on shared values rather than personal fealty?

When Zelensky flashed that thumbs-up to reporters as he left the Oval Office, he wasn't surrendering—he was signaling defiance in the face of intimidation. The question is whether Americans recognize the embrace of Putin’s philosophy: that might makes right, that personal loyalty matters more than democratic principles, and that the strong dictate the terms to the weak. When the American president treats democratic values as irritating constraints rather than foundational strengths, it corrodes our institutions from within.

As America pivots toward Putin's worldview, all Americans should be asking ourselves: Is this the model of governance we want for our country?