When the nation’s top intelligence officials testify before Congress on Tuesday to present the first public “Worldwide Threat Assessment” of President Trump’s second term, they will face a critical decision.
They must determine whether to uphold their long-standing assessment of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia—that his primary objectives include dismantling the Ukrainian government and destabilizing both the United States and its Western allies—or to align with the evolving stance of President Trump and his lead negotiator on Russian affairs, who now characterize Putin as a reliable potential business associate seeking to conclude a troublesome war, claim territories in Ukraine he believes rightfully belong to Russia, and restore normalized relations with the United States.
This dilemma has grown even more pronounced in recent days due to the rhetoric of Steve Witkoff, a long-time real estate associate of Trump and his appointed envoy to both the Middle East and Russia. Witkoff has increasingly echoed Putin’s preferred narratives. He has dismissed European concerns regarding Russia’s potential to violate any agreed-upon ceasefire and rejected the necessity of assembling an international peacekeeping force to deter future aggression. Speaking with Tucker Carlson, a media figure aligned with the MAGA movement, Witkoff dismissed the peacekeeping proposal as mere posturing by NATO’s closest allies.
He suggested that these concerns stem from an outdated worldview reminiscent of World War II, portraying Russia as an expansionist threat poised to march across Europe. “I find that notion absurd,” Witkoff remarked.
Despite the fact that Russian forces launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine three years ago, attempting to overthrow its government, Witkoff contends that Putin has no genuine interest in annexing the entire country. “Why would Russia want to absorb Ukraine? For what purpose exactly? They have no need to do so,” he argued, claiming instead that Moscow seeks only “stability in the region.”
Witkoff further stated that he found Putin to be “forthright” in their discussions—a remarkable assertion given Putin’s history of deception, including his repeated assurances to the world that Russia had no intention of invading Ukraine before ultimately doing so.
Among the many policy reversals taking place in Washington, perhaps none is as disorienting to allies, intelligence professionals, and diplomats as the Trump administration’s evolving perception of Russia and its apparent willingness to take Putin at his word. Prior to Trump’s presidency, the United States and its allies widely accepted that they had, for too long, underestimated Russia’s ambitions. Putin had signaled his intentions as early as 2007, arguing that certain territories should be reintegrated into Russia. This was followed by his military actions in Georgia, the annexation of Crimea, and the covert deployment of Russian forces—disguised as separatists—to wage war in the Donbas region of Ukraine.
Despite these aggressions, Western sanctions were slow to materialize, and European nations took too long to rearm—an argument that Trump himself frequently makes when pressing NATO members to increase their defense spending.
Now, however, Trump refuses to acknowledge the fundamental reality that Russia launched an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. His stance has been openly challenged by multiple European leaders who insist that, regardless of U.S. policy shifts, they will not seek normalization with Russia. “I do not trust Putin,” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer recently stated in an interview with The New York Times. “I am certain that Putin would demand Ukraine be left defenseless after any peace agreement because it would grant him the opportunity to strike again.”
For U.S. intelligence agencies, which rely on a combination of classified intelligence gathering and open-source analysis, there is no indication that their assessment of Putin and his objectives has changed. The challenge now falls to the newly appointed Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and the new CIA Director, John Ratcliffe, to navigate this delicate situation, describing Russia both as a present adversary and a potential future collaborator.
Witkoff has already begun laying the groundwork for this shift in policy. In his conversation with Carlson, he envisioned a scenario where the United States and Russia collaborate on maritime trade, jointly supply liquefied natural gas to Europe, and even work together on artificial intelligence. He proposed these possibilities as achievable outcomes if a negotiated ceasefire allowed Russia to maintain control over the territories it currently occupies while securing a firm guarantee that Ukraine would never be permitted to join NATO. “Who wouldn’t want to see such a world?” he asked.
Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, expressed deep concern over the statements made by Witkoff and other members of the Trump administration. “For those who have spent their careers in the intelligence community, knowing the full extent of Putin’s actions, it is incredibly jarring to witness such an abrupt shift in U.S. policy that aligns so closely with Russian interests,” Warner remarked.
He further noted that while the intelligence community’s official “Worldwide Threat Assessment” document is expected to be consistent with previous reports, the testimony of Trump’s intelligence officials remains unpredictable. So far, he argued, their public comments on Ukraine have deviated significantly from the long-established perspective on the Russian threat.
The ramifications of this evolving policy extend beyond U.S. intelligence circles. Warner warned that shifting American rhetoric on Russia risks undermining intelligence-sharing relationships with key allies. While the United States remains the world’s premier intelligence-gathering power, the insights and contributions of its partners are substantial. Should allies lose faith in Washington’s commitment to objective intelligence analysis, they may begin to withhold critical information.
Several foreign officials, speaking anonymously, have voiced alarm over Witkoff’s statements, highlighting their resemblance to Kremlin propaganda. They pointed to his endorsement of so-called “referendums” in four Ukrainian regions, which were widely condemned as fraudulent, with reports of voter coercion, intimidation, and threats of deportation. Nevertheless, Witkoff framed these events as legitimate expressions of the people’s will.
“These referendums demonstrated that an overwhelming majority of residents prefer to be governed by Russia,” he asserted. In response, Oleksandr Merezhko, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in Ukraine’s Parliament, publicly called for Witkoff’s removal from his position.
“These statements are disgraceful and shocking,” Merezhko declared in an interview with Ukrainian media. “He is parroting Russian propaganda. The question must be asked: Is he truly Trump’s envoy, or is he acting as Putin’s representative?”
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky adopted a more measured tone in a recent interview with Time magazine. While he refrained from calling for Witkoff’s dismissal, he expressed concern that “Russia has successfully influenced certain figures within the White House through its information campaigns.”
Previously, Zelensky warned of the “disinformation web” surrounding Trump, suggesting it contributed to their difficult diplomatic relationship. He also noted Trump’s recent repetition of Putin’s false claim that Ukrainian forces had been encircled within Russian territory.
“That was a blatant lie,” Zelensky stated.