Friday’s extraordinary Oval Office meeting between President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy went off the rails, leaving hopes for a U.S.-brokered peace deal between Russia and Ukraine in question. Here are some reasons why things went wrong, and where it leaves efforts to end the war.

Zelenskyy does not grasp—or deliberately ignores—the bitter truth: Those with whom he feels most affinity (Western globalists, the American Left, the Europeans) have little power in 2025 to help him. And those whom he obviously does not like or seeks to embarrass (as with his Scranton, Penn. campaign-like visit in September 2024) alone have the power to save him. For his own sake, I hope he is not being ‘briefed’ by the Obama-Clinton-Biden gang to confront Trump, given their interests are not really Ukraine’s as they feign.

. Zelenskyy acts as if his agenda and ours are identical. So, he keeps insisting that he is fighting for us despite our two-ocean-distance that he mocks. We do have many shared interests with Ukraine, but not all by any means: Trump wants to ‘reset’ with Russia and triangulate it against China. He seeks to avoid a 1962 DEFCON 2-like crisis over a proxy showdown in proximity to a nuclear rival. And he sincerely wants to end the deadlocked Stalingrad slaughterhouse for everyone’s sake.

. The Europeans (and Canada) are now talking loudly of a new muscular antithesis, independent of the U.S. Promises, promises—given that would require Europeans to prune back their social welfare state, frack, use nuclear, stop the green obsession, and spend 3-5% of their GDP on defense. The U.S. does not just pay 16% of NATO’s budget, but also puts up with asymmetrical tariffs that result in a European Union trade surplus of $160 billion, plays the world cop, patrolling sea-lanes and deterring terrorists and rogue states that otherwise might interrupt Europe’s commercial networks abroad, as well as de facto including Europe under a nuclear umbrella of 6,500 nukes.

. Zelenskyy must know that all of the once-deal-breaking impediments to peace have been settled. Ukraine is now better armed than most NATO nations, but will not be in NATO, and no president has or will ever supply Ukraine with the armed wherewithal to take back the Donbass and Crimea. So, the only two issues are a) how far will Putin be willing to withdraw to his 2022 borders and b) how will he be deterred? The first is answered by a commercial sector/tripwire, joint Ukrainian-US-Europe resource development corridor in Eastern Ukraine, coupled with a Korea-like DMZ; the second by the fact that Putin, unlike his 2008 and 2014 invasions, has now incurred a million dead and wounded to a Ukraine that will remain thusly armed. 

What are Zelenskyy’s alternatives without much U.S. help—wait for a return of the Democrats to the White House in four years? Hope for a rearmed Europe? Pray for a Democratic House and a third Vindman-like engineered Trump impeachment? Or swallow his pride, return to the White House, sign the rare-earth minerals deal, invite in the Euros (are they seriously willing to patrol a DMZ?), and hope Trump can warn Putin, as he did successfully between 2017-21, not to dare try it again?

. If there is a cease-fire, a commercial deal, a Euro ground presence, and influx of Western companies into Ukraine, would there be elections? And if so, would Zelenskyy and his party win? And if not, would there be a successor transparent government that would reveal exactly where all the Western financial aid money went? 

Zelenskyy might see a model in Netanyahu. The Biden Administration was far harder on him than Trump is on Ukraine, suspending arms shipments, demanding cease-fires, prodding for a wartime, bipartisan cabinet, hammering Israel on collateral damage—none of which Westerners have demanded of Zelenskyy. Yet Netanyahu managed a hostile President Biden, kept Israel close to its patron, and, when visiting, was gracious to his host. Netanyahu certainly would never before the global media have interrupted and berated a host and patron president in the White House. 

. If Ukraine has alienated the U.S., what then is its strategic victory plan? Wait around for more Euros? Hold off an increasingly invigorated Russian military? Cede more territory? What, then, exactly are Zelenskyy’s cards he seems to think form a winning hand? 

. If one views carefully all the 50-minute tape, most of it was going quite well—until Zelenskyy started correcting Vance firstly, and Trump secondly. By Ukraine-splaining to his hosts, and by his gestures, tone, and interruptions, he made it clear that he assumed that Trump was just more of the same compliant, clueless moneybags Biden waxen effigy. And that was naïve for such a supposedly worldly leader. 

. March 2025 is not March 2022, after the heroic saving of Kyiv—but three years and 1.5 million dead and wounded later. Zelenskyy is no longer the international heartthrob with the glamorous entourage. He has postponed elections, outlawed opposition media and parties, suspended habeas corpus and walked out of negotiations when he had an even hand in spring 2022 and apparently even now when he does not in spring 2025.

Quo vadis, Volodymyr?

Ric Grenell, the Trump administration’s special presidential envoy for special missions, slammed Obama and Biden-era diplomat Susan Rice for the Democratic Party’s years of foreign policies that he said landed the U.S. in two different wars under the Biden administration alone.  

‘Your guy couldn’t even talk to Putin. For 3.5 years! Your policies helped usher in a war in Ukraine, Gaza…and Rwanda if you remember,’ Grenell posted to X on Saturday afternoon. 

‘And then you lied about Libya – it wasn’t caused by a video,’ he continued, referring to claims in 2012 that an anti-Islam video led to the Benghazi terror attack on U.S. government facilities in the Libyan city. ‘You made that up…. Donald Trump handed you peace in the Middle East and Europe – you handed us two wars. We see you,’ he added. 

Grenell was responding to a post from Susan Rice, who served as an Obama administration national security advisor and U.N. ambassador, that claimed conservatives ‘are up to the same old tired crap’ following President Donald Trump’s tense meeting with Ukraine President Volodomyr Zelenskyy on Friday. 

The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway had posted to X speculating that Rice and other Democrats may have ‘personally’ advised Zelenskyy on acting ‘hostile and to try to goad Trump into blowing up’ during the meeting, sparking Rice to weigh in. 

‘You clowns are up to the same old tired crap,’ Rice posted to X. ‘When your guy screws up and royally embarrasses himself and the U.S., you try to change the subject and lie about a favorite target to distract and deflect. For the record, I have never met Zelenskyy and never spoken to him. Ever. Or advised him or anybody around him. It’s a shame that you contend that it is in the U.S. national interest to sell out Ukraine and suck up to Putin.’

Hemingway shot back, ‘Thank you for your response. Where would we place this denial, compared to your oft-repeated lie that the Benghazi debacle was due to a YouTube video, and your lie that you ‘knew nothing’ about the unmasking of Trump officials before being forced to admit you did it widely?’

Last week, Rice joined MSNBC and declared ‘there’s no question’ that the Trump-Vance meeting with Zelenskyy ‘was a setup.’

‘It’s a very sad day and an embarrassment for the United States on the world stage. But let’s step back and analyze what’s happened here. I think there’s no question that this was a setup,’ she said on MSNBC. 

‘Soon after [Zelenskyy] got there, the vice president of the United States lit into him and started a confrontation. Now, I’ve been in countless Oval Office meetings with heads of state, presidents and vice presidents, as national security advisor, as U.N. ambassador, and in other roles. I can tell you that the vice president or the secretary of state or anybody else, they don’t jump in, hijack a conversation without the express blessing of the president of the United States. So JD Vance did that deliberately. Donald Trump knew what he was going to do,’ she continued. 

Ahead of his meeting with Trump, Zelenskyy also met with a group of bipartisan Senate lawmakers, including Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Chris Coons, D-Del., and Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. Zelenskyy reportedly told the group that he would not ‘support a fake peace agreement’ during that meeting.  

‘Just finished a meeting with President Zelensky (sic) here in Washington. He confirmed that the Ukrainian people will not support a fake peace agreement where Putin gets everything he wants and there are no security arrangements for Ukraine,’ Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., posted to X on Friday morning. 

Zelenskyy joined Trump and his team in the Oval Office shortly after the Senate meeting, where political fireworks were on full display following Zelenskyy taking issue with Vice President JD Vance arguing the path to securing peace between Russia and Ukraine was through the U.S. engaging in diplomacy.

‘You’re gambling with the lives of millions of people,’ Trump said at one point during the meeting. ‘You’re gambling with World War III. You’re gambling with World War III. And what you’re doing is very disrespectful to the country, this country.’

Vance also interjected, asking Zelenskyy whether he had ‘said thank you once this entire meeting.’ 

Congress has appropriated $175 billion since 2022 for aid to Ukraine, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, though exact monetary figures on how much the U.S. has provided to Ukraine vary based on what is considered aid. 

Total European assistance to Ukraine between January 2022 and December 2024 totals $138.7 billion, according to German think tank the Kiel Institute. The U.S. contributed $119.7 billion during that same timeframe, Fox Digital previously reported.

‘Your people are very brave,’ Trump continued in the meeting. ‘But you’re either going to make a deal or we’re out. And if we’re out, you’ll fight it out. I don’t think it’s going to be pretty, but you’ll fight it out. But you don’t have the cards. But once we sign that deal, you’re in a much better position. But you’re not acting at all thankful. And that’s not a nice thing. I’ll be honest. That’s not a nice thing.’

Zelenskyy traveled to the U.K. over the weekend, meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who told local media that he had spoken with Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron regarding the U.K. and France taking the reins on crafting a plan for peace that will eventually be presented to the U.S. 

European leaders are meeting in London on Sunday to continue peace talks. 

Late Saturday, Washington D.C. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that President Donald Trump violated federal law in firing Hampton Dellinger, head of the Office of Special Counsel. Jackson’s decision is forceful, well-written, and arguably wrong under existing precedent. Indeed, it may have just set up an appeal that both presidents and professors have long waited for to reinforce presidential powers.

Appointed by President Joe Biden, and the son of the respected liberal scholar and Clinton acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, Hampton Dellinger was confirmed by the Senate for a five-year term beginning in 2024. He sued after receiving an email with a perfunctory termination notice shortly after Trump’s inauguration. The various inspector generals were also terminated and, at the time, some of us raised concerns over compliance with underlying federal statutes. The issue was not likely the outcome, but the process for such removals. However, while many objected to the helter-skelter approach to such terminations, there may be a method to this madness. Indeed, this ruling may be precisely what the Trump administration is seeking as the foundation for a major new constitutional challenge.

Dellinger’s claim is based in large part on the Civil Service Reform Act, which provides that the Special Counsel ‘may be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.’ 5 U.S.C. 1211(b). The notice gave none of these grounds for the termination even though ‘inefficiency’ and ‘neglect’ are a fairly ambiguous and malleable rationale.

Judge Jackson held that the firing clearly violated the controlling statute and that the Act itself was constitutional. She emphasized that, while there are grounds for presidents to claim the power for at-will terminations, those cases have tended to be offices that carry out executive functions. Jackson described the Special Counsel as an essentially harmless office vis-à-vis executive authority.

‘Special Counsel acts as an ombudsman, a clearinghouse for complaints and allegations, and after looking into them, he can encourage the parties to resolve the matter among themselves,’ she wrote. ‘But if that fails, he must direct them elsewhere.’

She noted that earlier cases supporting the executive power to fire executive officials involved ‘restrictions on the President’s ability to remove an official who wields significant executive authority. The Special Counsel simply does not.’

Judge Jackson has a good-faith reliance on her narrow reading of existing precedent. However, it is far from conclusive and brushes over some striking conflicts with prior rulings of the Supreme Court. Jackson insisted that a contrary ruling would undermine the very point of the special counsel office, which she identified as its independence. However, that is the very point that has irked both Democratic and Republican presidents for years.

In 1978, President Jimmy Carter objected on these grounds. The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel explained that, ‘[b]ecause the Special Counsel [would] be performing largely executive functions, the Congress [could] not restrict the President’s power to remove him.’ 2 Op. O.L.C. 120, 121 (1978).

It is unclear whether the current Supreme Court would agree with an exception for minor or de minimus intrusions. Many scholars and judges believe that a president either has Article II authority to fire executive branch officials or he does not.

Notably, there are only four single agency heads who were given tenure protection by Congress: the directors of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), the commissioner of Social Security, and the Special Counsel. In 2020, the Court ruled in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB that Congress had violated Article II by granting tenure protection to that sole agency head, writing:

‘The CFPB’s single-Director structure contravene[d] [Article II’s] carefully calibrated system by vesting significant governmental power in the hands of a single individual accountable to no one.’ Id. at 224.

Then, in 2021, in Collins v. Yellen, the Court rejected the same claim as to the director of the FHFA. That opinion came with language that directly opposes Jackson’s rationale. The Court found Seila Law to be ‘all but dispositive’ on the question and expressly rejected the argument that this would change depending upon ‘the nature and breadth of an agency’s authority.’ The Court held that the ‘[c]ourts are not well-suited to weigh the relative importance of the regulatory and enforcement authorities of disparate agencies.’

Given these cases, lower courts clearly got the message – a message amplified by President Joe Biden, who appointed Dellinger. On the third ‘independent’ position, the commissioner of Social Security, Biden’s Office of Legal Counsel declared that ‘the best reading of Collins and Seila Law‘ is that ‘the President need not heed the Commissioner’s statutory tenure protection.’ Two circuits (the Ninth and Eleventh) have ruled consistently with that interpretation in favor of executive authority to remove such officers.

Ultimately, Dellinger can be removed even if this decision stands. The Trump Administration could have easily cited a basis like inefficiency or neglect. The question is why it decided not to do so. Clearly, it could just be a chainsaw approach to cutting positions. However, it may also reflect a desire for some in the administration to challenge lingering case law limiting executive powers. In other words, they seem to be spoiling for a fight.

The reason may be Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), which established the right of Congress to create independent agencies. It found that Congress could, without violating Article II powers, provide tenure protection to ‘a multimember body of experts, balanced along partisan lines, that performed legislative and judicial functions and was said not to exercise any executive power.’ The Court in cases like Seila Law cited that precedent for one of the exceptions to executive power. It also cited an exception for giving tenure protection to ‘certain inferior officers with narrowly defined duties,’ under Morrison v. Olson (1988). Jackson cited both cases and those exceptions in shoehorning the Special Counsel into a narrow band of quasi-executive positions.

What may be overlooked in the filings of the administration before the Supreme Court in the Dellinger case was this line in a footnote: ‘Humphrey’s Executor appears to have misapprehended the powers of ‘the New Deal-era [Federal Trade Commission]’ and misclassified those powers as primarily legislative and judicial.’ It went on to suggest that the case is not only wrongly decided but that the Justice Department ‘intends to urge this Court to overrule that decision.’

Described by the Court as ‘the outer-most constitutional limits of permissible congressional restrictions on the President’s removal power,’ the Trump Administration appears set to try to redraw that constitutional map.

That is why Jackson’s opinion may not only be expected but welcomed by the Trump administration. It is hunting for bigger game than Dellinger and Judge Jackson just gave it a clear shot for the Supreme Court.

Months after war broke out between Russia and Ukraine, then-President Joe Biden had a fiery private phone call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, which included Biden allegedly losing ‘his temper’ and calling on Ukraine to ‘show a little more gratitude’ towards the U.S. for its support, a resurfaced 2022 NBC News report shows. 

‘Biden had barely finished telling Zelenskyy that he had just greenlighted another $1 billion in U.S. military assistance for Ukraine when Zelenskyy started listing all the additional help he needed and wasn’t getting,’ according to an NBC report published in November 2022, recounting a prior June 2022 call that Biden and Zelenskyy shared. 

‘Biden lost his temper, the people familiar with the call said. The American people were being quite generous, and his administration and the U.S. military were working hard to help Ukraine, he said, raising his voice, and Zelenskyy could show a little more gratitude,’ the report continued. 

The reported tense exchange on the phone came just months after Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022. The pair’s relationship ‘only improved’ following the phone call, Biden administration officials told NBC at the time. 

Fox News Digital reached out to Biden’s office on Sunday morning for additional comment on the 2022 phone call but did not immediately receive a reply. 

The report resurfaced over the weekend, following President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance’s fiery meeting with Zelenskyy, which included the VP pressing the Ukraine leader on his gratitude for the U.S.’s assistance across the years, and Trump asking Zelenskyy to leave the White House – stipulating that he can return ‘when he is ready for Peace.’

The White House meeting grew tense in approximately its final 10 minutes, after Vance said that peace would be reached between Russia and Ukraine through U.S. diplomacy efforts.

‘Mr. President, with respect, I think it’s disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media,’ Vance told Zelenskyy. ‘Right now, you guys are going around and forcing conscripts to the front lines, because you have manpower problems. You should be thanking the president for bringing it, to bring it into this country.’ 

‘Have you’ve ever been to Ukraine that you say what problems we have?’ Zelenskyy shot back. 

‘I’ve actually watched and seen the stories and I know that what happens is you bring people, you bring them on a propaganda tour,’ Vance continued. ‘Mr. President, do you disagree that you’ve had problems bringing people into your military? And do you think that it’s respectful to come to the Oval Office of the United States of America and attack the administration that is trying to, trying to prevent the destruction of your country?’ 

Zelenskyy continued that under war, ‘everybody has problems, even you,’ and that the U.S. would feel the war ‘in the future.’

‘Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel,’ Trump shot back at Zelenskyy. 

‘You’re gambling with the lives of millions of people,’ Trump added at another point during the exchange. ‘You’re gambling with World War III. You’re gambling with World War III. And what you’re doing is very disrespectful to the country, this country.’

Vance interjected, asking Zelenskyy whether he had ‘said thank you once this entire meeting.’ He also added that Zelenskyy ‘went to Pennsylvania and campaigned for the opposition in October’ and that he should ‘offer some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the president who’s trying to save your country.’

Congress has appropriated $175 billion since 2022 for aid to Ukraine, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, though exact monetary figures on how much the U.S. has provided to Ukraine vary based on what is considered aid. 

Total European assistance to Ukraine between January 2022 and December 2024 totals roughly $138.7 billion, according to German think tank the Kiel Institute. The U.S. contributed $119.7 billion during that same timeframe, Fox Digital previously reported. 

Trump continued in his remarks to Zelenskyy that ‘the problem is, I’ve empowered you to be a tough guy, and I don’t think you’d be a tough guy without the United States.’

‘And your people are very brave. But you’re either going to make a deal or we’re out. And if we’re out, you’ll fight it out. I don’t think it’s going to be pretty, but you’ll fight it out. But you don’t have the cards. But once we sign that deal, you’re in a much better position. But you’re not acting at all thankful. And that’s not a nice thing. I’ll be honest. That’s not a nice thing,’ Trump said. 

Zelenskyy left the White House shortly after. The Trump administration canceled a planned press conference with Zelenskyy later that day, while a planned speaking event featuring the Ukraine leader at a Washington, D.C.-based think tank was canceled.  

Zelenskyy did join Fox News’ Bret Baier for an exclusive interview on Friday evening, where he was pressed on whether he would apologize to Trump. U.S. leaders, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, called on Zelenskyy to apologize for the Oval Office meeting, but the Ukraine president bucked the calls during the Baier interview, while adding that he respects Trump and the U.S.

‘I’m very thankful to Americans for all your support. You did a lot. I’m thankful to President Trump and to Congress for bipartisan support,’ he responded when asked about an apology. ‘You helped us a lot from the very beginning, during three years of full-scale invasion, you helped us to survive.’

‘No, I respect the president and I respect American people. . . . I think that we have to be very open and very honest, and I’m not sure that we did something bad,’ he added when asked again whether he believes he owes Trump an apology. 

Zelenskyy traveled to the UK over the weekend, meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who told local media that he had spoken with Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron regarding the UK and France taking the reins on crafting a plan for peace that will eventually be presented to the U.S. 

European leaders are slated to travel to London on Sunday to further discuss a peace plan. 

Fox News Digital’s Diana Stancy contributed to this report. 

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth directed the Department of Defense (DOD)’s civilian workforce to comply with Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) productivity email, listing five things they accomplished after initially telling them not to reply.

On Sunday, Hegseth released a video message explaining the shift.

‘Our civilian patriots who dedicate themselves to defending this nation working for the Department of Defense are critical to our national security,’ Hegseth said. ‘As we work to restore focus on DOD’s core warfighting mission under President Trump’s leadership, we recognize that we cannot accomplish that mission without the strong and important contributions of our civilian workforce.’

Musk, who’s heading up DOGE, shared Hegseth’s video on X, writing, ‘Much appreciated @SecDef Hegseth!’ He also included a saluting emoji and an American flag emoji. 

Hegseth signed a memorandum on Friday to all DOD civilian employees, ahead of an anticipated email expected to be sent from the DOD on Monday requesting the five bullet points of accomplishments.

Hegseth told employees to reply to the email within 48 hours and include their accomplishments and add their supervisors as recipients.

He said in the video that the responses would be collected within the department to satisfy the requirement sent out by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

OPM sent an email last weekend, seeking the same five bullets, though the DOD’s Office of Personnel and Readiness told its civilian workforce to ignore the request.

The DOD is taking a different approach to the request this week after working with OPM to get better guidance on what is expected.

‘The Department of Defense initially paused this directive … but now requires all DOD civilian employees to submit five bullets on their previous week’s achievements,’ Hegseth said in his memorandum.

He told employees Monday’s email is something DOD employees should respond to, though responses should not include sensitive or classified information.

Hegseth also said non-compliance may lead to further review. 

A well-known Catholic bishop will be in the audience for President Donald Trump’s joint address to Congress, Fox News Digital has learned.

Bishop Robert Barron, founder of Catholic media organization Word On Fire, is coming to the Tuesday night speech as a guest of first-term Rep. Riley Moore, R-W.Va.

Moore also invited Barron to participate in a Catholic Mass with lawmakers before the address.

‘Through Word on Fire, Bishop Barron has helped countless souls discover, strengthen, or return to the Catholic Church by proclaiming the Gospel ‘through the culture.’ His use of contemporary media to reach people is innovative and highly effective,’ Moore said in a statement first shared with Fox News Digital. 

‘I am honored to host him as my guest for President Trump’s joint address to Congress, and am equally thrilled to have him celebrate the Mass for my colleagues and me prior to the speech.’

Barron called himself a ‘student of history’ in his own statement shared with Fox News Digital accepting the invitation.

‘I want to express my sincere gratitude to Representative Riley Moore for his kind invitation to celebrate Mass for Catholic members of Congress and to attend, as his guest, the State of the Union Address,’ Barron said.

Barron is bishop of the Diocese of Winona–Rochester in Minnesota. His name has traveled further, however, as a leader in bringing Catholic teachings to more people using digital media.

Trump is making his first speech to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night since returning to the White House for his second term.

Senior Trump adviser Jason Miller previewed the speech during ‘Fox & Friends Weekend’ on Sunday morning.

Miller said Trump will discuss getting his 2017 tax cuts extended, ‘Making sure we get to Mars,’ our artificial intelligence competition against China, and reversing the high cost of living seen under the previous Democratic administration.

‘We need more money for the border to keep it secure,’ Miller continued, adding Trump would also discuss ‘making sure we keep peace and stability around the world, but we have to do it with respect and strength.’

The tense meeting between President Donald Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy puts the spotlight on some European nations’ ‘divergence’ from promoting freedom and reaching peace in Eastern Europe, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said on ‘Fox News Sunday.’

‘I think those who are criticizing [Trump’s] efforts in this way are showing that they are not committed to peace, and in the case of many of those European countries, that they’re not committed to the cause and values of freedom, even though they speak of this,’ Gabbard told Fox News’ Shannon Bream on Sunday morning when asked about Democrat U.S. politicians criticizing the meeting at the White House and Russia celebrating Trump’s tense meeting with Zelenskyy. 

‘We heard very clearly during Vice President Vance’s speech in Munich, different examples of how these European partners and longtime allies, in many cases, are actually implementing policies that undermine democracy that shows that they don’t actually believe in the voices of the people being heard, and implementing anti-freedom policies. We’re seeing this in the United Kingdom. We’re seeing this in Germany. We saw it with the tossing out of the elections in Romania,’ she continued. 

Zelenskyy traveled to the UK over the weekend, following his meeting with Trump and Vance, which culminated in Trump telling the Ukraine leader to leave the White House, while adding in a social media post that Zelenskyy can come back for another meeting ‘when he is ready for Peace.’

On Saturday, Zelenskyy met with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who was seen hugging him and told local media on Sunday that he had spoken with Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron regarding the UK and France taking the reins on crafting a plan for peace that will eventually be presented to the U.S. 

European leaders are meeting in London on Sunday to further discuss a peace plan. 

Gabbard argued in her interview that ‘there’s something fundamentally deeper here that shows a huge difference and divergence between’ U.S. values and national security versus European countries offering continued support for the war. 

‘There’s something fundamentally deeper here that shows a huge difference and divergence between the values that President Trump and Vice President Vance are fighting for, the values that are enshrined in our Constitution, the interests of the American people in our peace and freedom and national security, versus those of many of these European countries who are coming to Zelenskyy’s side as he walked out of the White House, saying basically, that they are going to support him in continuing this war, and that they don’t stand with us around these fundamental values of freedom,’ she said. 

Bream followed-up by asking Gabbard whether she would identify Russia as a country that celebrates freedom similarly to the U.S., which Gabbard denied, adding ‘that’s not really what we’re talking about here.’ 

‘I would not make that claim, and it’s clear that that’s not the case, nor does President Trump. But that’s not really what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about many of these European countries and Zelenskyy himself, who claim to be standing and fighting for the cause of freedom and democracy, when we actually look at what’s happening in reality in these countries, as well as with the Zelenskyy’s government in Ukraine, is the exact opposite.’

‘You have the canceling of elections in Ukraine. You have political parties being silenced or even criminalized or thrown in prison. You have the freedom of religion, churches being shut down, you have political opposition being silenced, you have total government control of the media.’

‘It really begs the question,’ she continued. ‘As Vice President Vance said again in Munich, it’s clear that they’re standing against Putin. Obviously, that’s clear. But what are they actually really fighting for, and are they aligned with the values that they claim to hold in agreement with us? The values that President Trump and Vice President Vance are standing for, and those are the values of freedom, of peace and true security.’ 

Zelenskyy’s White House visit was cut short on Friday following the heated exchange, which included Vance asking the Ukraine leader about his gratitude for the U.S.’s assistance across the years, and Trump telling Zelenskyy that Ukraine will either make a deal with the U.S. or battle the war on their own. 

‘You’re either going to make a deal or we’re out. And if we’re out, you’ll fight it out. I don’t think it’s going to be pretty, but you’ll fight it out. But you don’t have the cards. But once we sign that deal, you’re in a much better position. But you’re not acting at all thankful. And that’s not a nice thing. I’ll be honest. That’s not a nice thing,’ Trump said on Friday. 

As part of the peace deal, the Trump administration was also working to ink an agreement with Ukraine that would allow the U.S. access to Ukraine’s minerals in exchange for support that the U.S. has offered the nation since war broke out in 2022.

Zelenskyy did join Fox News’ Bret Baier for an exclusive interview on Friday evening, where he was pressed on whether he would apologize to Trump over the meeting. 

The Ukraine president, however, did not offer an apology but did say that he respects Trump and the U.S.

‘I’m very thankful to Americans for all your support. You did a lot. I’m thankful to President Trump and to Congress for bipartisan support,’ he responded when asked about an apology. ‘You helped us a lot from the very beginning, during three years of full-scale invasion, you helped us to survive.’

‘No, I respect the president, and I respect American people … I think that we have to be very open and very honest, and I’m not sure that we did something bad,’ he added when asked again whether he believes he owes Trump an apology. 

As President Trump prepares to deliver his first address to joint sessions of Congress since taking office in January, here are several of the wildest moments from joint addresses from presidents in the past. 

West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat who later became an independent, went viral on social media after he stood when President Trump entered the chamber, and stood and applauded some of Trump’s policy proposals when other Democrats remained sitting.

‘That’s the way I was raised in West Virginia. We have respect,’ Manchin said about his actions at Trump’s first State of the Union address. ‘There is some civility still yet. There should be civility in this place.’

Some of my Republican friends want to take the economy hostage — I get it — unless I agree to their economic plans,’ Biden said to Congress, prompting a shake of the head from then-GOP House Speaker Kevin McCarthy in the background and shouts from the crowd and shots of other Republicans shaking their heads. 

‘Instead of making the wealthy pay their fair share, some Republicans, some Republicans, want Medicare and Social Security to sunset,’ Biden continued, which caused an even more pronounced shake of the head from McCarthy, who mouthed ‘no’ as Republicans continued to jeer. 

‘I’m not saying it’s the majority,’ Biden continued, which resulted in even more boos from the raucous crowd. 

‘Let me give you — anybody who doubts it, contact my office. I’ll give you a copy — I’ll give you a copy of the proposal,’ Biden continued to say over increasingly louder shouting from the crowd, which included GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, stood up and gestured her frustration. ‘ That means Congress doesn’t vote — I’m glad to see — no, I tell you, I enjoy conversion.’

Biden’s speech continued to devolve from there as Republican outrage interrupted him on multiple occasions. 

Guests in the audience acknowledged in presidential speeches to joint sessions of Congress have become commonplace in recent years, but President Ronald Reagan’s 1982 address was the first time the practice was rolled out. 

Reagan’s speech came just weeks after Air Florida Flight 90 crashed into Washington’s 14th Street Bridge over the Potomac River shortly after taking off in an accident that killed 78 people. 

Three people survived the crash thanks to civilians on the ground who rushed to their aid, including Congressional Budget Office assistant Lenny Skutnik, who stripped off his shoes and clothes and dove into the frigid waters.

Reagan honored Skutnik in his speech, which made honoring people in the crowd a more common theme in the years to come. 

‘Just 2 weeks ago, in the midst of a terrible tragedy on the Potomac, we saw again the spirit of American heroism at its finest — the heroism of dedicated rescue workers saving crash victims from icy waters,’ Reagan said. ‘And we saw the heroism of one of our young government employees, Lenny Skutnik, who, when he saw a woman lose her grip on the helicopter line, dived into the water and dragged her to safety.’

‘You put them in, 13 of them,’ GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert shouted at Biden as he talked about Afghanistan veterans who ended up in caskets due to exposure to toxic burn pits. Boebert was referencing the 13 U.S. service members killed during Biden’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. 

Boebert was wearing an outfit that said ‘Drill Baby Drill’ in opposition to Biden’s energy policies and her outburst drew some boos from the audience.

At another point, Boebert and Greene started chanting ‘build the wall’ when Biden was talking about immigration. 

One of the most remembered outbursts from a State of the Union address came in 2009 when South Carolina GOP Congressman Joe Wilson interrupted President Obama’s address, which at the time was far less common than it later became. 

‘There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants,’ Obama said, talking about his controversial Obamacare plan. ‘This, too, is false. The reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.’

‘You lie!’ Wilson shouted from his seat on the Republican side of the chamber, causing widespread yelling from other members in the audience.

Wilson later apologized to Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. 

‘This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the president’s remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill,’ Wilson said in a written statement. ‘While I disagree with the president’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the president for this lack of civility.’

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sparked a social media firestorm and cemented herself in State of the Union infamy in February 2020 when she stood up and tore Trump’s speech into pieces after he had finished.

When Fox News asked Pelosi afterward why she did it, she responded, ‘Because it was the courteous thing to do considering the alternatives.’ She added, ‘I tore it up. I was trying to find one page with truth on it. I couldn’t.’

Pelosi’s outburst came on the heels of Trump’s first impeachment trial, which ended in a Senate acquittal the day after the speech.

‘Speaker Pelosi just ripped up: One of our last surviving Tuskegee Airmen. The survival of a child born at 21 weeks. The mourning families of Rocky Jones and Kayla Mueller. A service member’s reunion with his family. That’s her legacy,’ the White House tweeted after Pelosi tore up the speech, referencing individuals who Trump mentioned during his address.

Fox News Digital’s Adam Shaw, Joseph Wulfsohn and Marisa Schultz contributed to this report.