The Zelensky-Trump Meeting Blow-Up: What You Missed

By now, you’ve probably seen clips of President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky becoming heated in a meeting in the Oval Office. But have you seen the critical moments that led to the heated exchange? Tangle News put together a summary of the key moments from that meeting. 

Many people have criticized the hostility and disrespect with which Trump and J.D. Vance treated Zelensky. As Builders, we would also like to see more respectful approaches, especially on the world stage. We know that such civility is possible even in the midst of major disagreements and tough negotiations. 

A key piece of advice for reducing tensions in negotiations is to avoid being provoked into an emotional response. Emotional responses produce more emotional responses, and that emotional dynamic can work against the goals of everyone involved. 

As with most news items relating to President Trump, people already know where they stand and have reasons for their stances, so we wanted to focus on something less examined: people’s reactions to the meeting.

The nature of polarization is that it drives us into us-versus-them camps where we are prone to reach for our preferred narratives to explain unfolding events and behaviors. After the incident, we saw some pro-Trump people seek to justify Trump’s and Vance’s hostile behaviors — and we saw some anti-Trump people filter the incident through a maximally pessimistic lens. 

To take one example: in pro-Trump circles, it went viral that Zelensky had called Vance a harsh curse word in Ukrainian. One account on X proclaimed “Zelensky is publicly humiliated in front of the whole world.” However, this report was based on ambiguous audio and hasn’t been verified (as far as we know). Another interpretation was that, if Zelensky did say that, the phrase in question can also be a general expression of frustration, and is not only an insult. 

But the interesting thing here, from a conflict perspective, is that we can see a demand for a narrative where Zelensky was the most offensive person. For pro-Trump people, Zelensky rudely cursing at Vance would be one reason to justify the aggressive treatment he received.  

That’s an extreme example, but we can see this general dynamic in other areas. For example, in the National Review, Rich Lowry criticized Zelensky’s decision not to wear a suit and to not be more respectful and thankful during the encounter. Political commentator Megyn Kelly agreed, saying that Zelensky should have “sucked up” to Trump.

To be clear, we aren’t saying there are no defensible criticisms one might make about Zelensky. We are only examining how polarization can lead us to reflexively defend “our side” as blameless while casting the “other side” as being entirely at fault and even as having malicious motives. 

We could also see this on the anti-Trump “side.” For example, many people have confidently stated that the incident was a purposeful ambush meant to provoke a fight with Zelensky and blow up the deal. But we should be willing to see that that’s only conjecture and that certainty seems unfounded. 

Another framing is that Trump’s treatment of Zelensky is due to him being “in the pocket” of Russia; that he is only doing Putin’s bidding; that he is a Russian asset. But that is another example of a worst-case conjecture (and a frequently heard one over the years).

Again, we aren’t here to tell you what to think about political motivations, stances, and negotiations. No matter what you think motivates Trump’s or anyone’s actions, we hope you recognize that conflicts often push people on both sides to make overly cynical and certain judgments. These harsh, divisive opinions only increase feelings of hostility and division — and help fan the flames of our tensions.

Join the Builders Movement! buildersmovement.org/invite