​​Contact your Senators and Representative—all at once, in one easy step:
📬 Use or personalize the Action Letter below, then click here to send it.
(Powered by Democracy.io, a nonpartisan tool by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.)
​
To contact the Office of the President, click here.
Subject: Protect Ukraine's Sovereignty
​
Dear [Recipient],
​
I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the recent developments surrounding President Trump’s engagement with Russian President Vladimir Putin in negotiations over the ongoing war in Ukraine. The discussions, which reportedly involve major concessions on Ukraine’s territorial integrity and NATO membership, raise serious constitutional, legal, and ethical questions that could have significant consequences for U.S. foreign policy and the principles of democracy that both the U.S. and Ukraine hold dear.
​
As you may be aware, the U.S. Constitution provides the President with the authority to conduct foreign relations; however, this power is not absolute. Under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, any formal treaty must be ratified by the Senate. This system of checks and balances is fundamental to the democratic process. Unilateral peace negotiations that bypass this process—particularly those that involve major concessions to an autocratic regime—undermine the very framework of democracy and foreign policy that our Constitution upholds.
​
Furthermore, under international law, the acquisition of territory by force is prohibited, as enshrined in the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions. Any peace agreement that legitimizes Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea or allows Russia to retain territories seized by force would violate both U.S. and international law, weakening global norms concerning territorial integrity and sovereignty. This could embolden authoritarian regimes worldwide and set a dangerous precedent.
​
Most importantly, any peace deal that excludes Ukraine from the negotiations or disregards its territorial integrity and aspirations for NATO membership would violate the democratic principles of self-determination and undermine Ukraine’s right to determine its own future. Democracy cannot thrive when the voices of those most directly affected by a conflict are excluded from critical negotiations. Ukraine has made clear that any agreement that does not include its government is unacceptable.
​
I urge you to:
-
Advocate for U.S. foreign policy that respects Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, ensuring that Ukraine is fully included in any peace negotiations.
-
Uphold the principles of constitutional checks and balances by ensuring that any peace deal is subject to proper oversight and does not bypass the role of Congress.
-
Ensure that any peace agreement complies with international law, particularly the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force.
-
Stand firm against any policy that would appease autocratic regimes and threaten the democratic values that underpin both the U.S. and Ukrainian constitutions.
-
​
It is crucial that the U.S. government upholds its obligations under both domestic law and international norms to protect the sovereignty and self-determination of Ukraine and other democracies facing autocratic threats.
​
Thank you for your time and attention to this urgent matter. I look forward to your response and to seeing your leadership in upholding constitutional, legal, and ethical principles in U.S. foreign policy.
​
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Backgrounder
Backgrounder: Legal, Constitutional, and Ethical Concerns: The Trump Administration’s Negotiations with Russia Over Ukraine
​
Overview:
Recent developments regarding U.S. President Donald Trump’s engagement with Russian President Vladimir Putin over the ongoing war in Ukraine have raised significant concerns about the legality, ethical implications, and democratic principles at stake. According to reports, Trump has been in discussions with Putin about a potential peace settlement, which would include major concessions on Ukraine’s demands for territorial integrity and NATO membership. These proposed concessions raise serious questions about whether such actions align with U.S. constitutional authority, international law, and the democratic values that both the U.S. and Ukraine hold dear.
​
1. U.S. Constitutional and Legal Framework:
The U.S. Constitution gives the president authority to engage in foreign relations, such as negotiating treaties. However, this power is not unlimited. Under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, while the president can negotiate treaties, any formal treaty must be approved by a two-thirds majority in the Senate. Unilateral actions by the president, such as proposing peace agreements that significantly alter U.S. foreign policy or international relationships, should be scrutinized, particularly when they bypass the broader governance process. In this case, Trump’s talks with Putin and possible concessions on Ukraine’s borders and NATO membership could bypass the role of Congress and the international community, raising concerns about the democratic checks and balances critical to the Constitution’s framework.
​
Key Constitutional Issues:
-
Executive Overreach: The president’s ability to engage in diplomacy does not grant the unilateral authority to alter territorial arrangements or recognize illegal annexations, especially those that contradict long-standing U.S. foreign policy.
-
Separation of Powers: The Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances. Actions that bypass Congressional input or disregard legislative oversight could undermine the separation of powers and democratic oversight.
2. International Law Concerns:
Under international law, the acquisition of territory by force is explicitly prohibited. Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 was widely condemned as an illegal action that violated Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Furthermore, the United Nations Charter prohibits nations from engaging in acts of aggression or altering borders through force. Any peace agreement that allows Russia to retain illegally annexed territories would not only violate international law but also weaken global norms regarding territorial integrity and sovereignty.
​
Key Legal Violations:
-
Violation of UN Charter Principles: Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea violated international law, and any U.S. recognition of these actions or unilateral peace agreements allowing Russia to "keep" annexed territories would be a breach of U.S. commitments to international peace and order.
-
Geneva Conventions: These Conventions protect individuals under occupation and seek to ensure that human rights are upheld during armed conflict. A peace deal that legitimizes Russia’s occupation could undermine these principles and set a dangerous precedent.
3. The Democratic Principles at Stake:
The Trump administration’s proposed peace negotiations raise serious concerns about the U.S. commitment to democratic principles both at home and abroad. Ukraine, as a democratic nation, has the right to determine its future, including its foreign alliances and territorial integrity. Any peace deal negotiated between Trump and Putin that excludes Ukraine from the discussions undermines the fundamental principle of self-determination. Furthermore, appeasing an autocratic leader like Putin through unilateral negotiations would send a message that democratic nations are willing to sacrifice their values for expediency or political gain.
​
Democratic Concerns:
-
Exclusion of Ukraine: The idea that Ukraine would be excluded from its own peace talks is an affront to democracy. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has made clear that any deal excluding Ukraine is unacceptable. Democracy must prioritize the voices of those directly impacted by a conflict.
-
Appeasement of Autocratic Regimes: Allowing Russia to retain territory seized by force could set a dangerous precedent, potentially emboldening other authoritarian regimes and destabilizing international peace.
4. Conclusion:
President Trump’s unilateral negotiations with Vladimir Putin regarding the war in Ukraine raise serious concerns about adherence to U.S. constitutional principles, international law, and democratic values. By considering concessions that allow Russia to retain illegally annexed territories or forego Ukraine’s NATO aspirations, the administration risks undermining U.S. law, weakening international norms regarding territorial integrity, and diminishing the democratic aspirations of the Ukrainian people. Any deal made under these conditions would violate both U.S. and international laws, including the prohibition on acquiring territory by force, and set a dangerous precedent that could further embolden authoritarian regimes worldwide.
​
The legal and ethical implications of this proposed approach cannot be ignored. It is critical that any peace negotiations involving Ukraine include the full participation of its government and respect for its territorial integrity, NATO aspirations, and democratic processes. The U.S. government must uphold its obligations under both domestic law and international norms to protect the sovereignty and self-determination of Ukraine and other democracies facing autocratic threats.
​
Citations:
-
United Nations Charter: Prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force.
-
The Geneva Conventions: Protection of individuals under occupation and principles of human rights during armed conflict.
-
U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2: Presidential powers regarding treaties and foreign policy.
-
Kyiv Independent, "Zelensky demands to be included in Trump-Putin peace talks," February 13, 2025.
-
Reuters, "Kyiv, EU alarmed by prospect of 'dirty deal' after Trump-Putin call," February 13, 2025.