Congressman Don Bacon recently revealed that he nearly resigned from his position due to his profound dissatisfaction with President Trump’s Ukraine peace plan. This admission provides a glimpse into the inner turmoil experienced by some Republican lawmakers as they navigate the complexities of party loyalty and personal conviction.
The proposed peace plan, which surfaced last week, consists of 28 points aimed at providing Ukraine with long-term security, European market access, and reconstruction funds. However, it also includes provisions that alarm many supporters of Ukraine, such as recognizing some of Russia’s territorial claims and ensuring Ukraine’s exclusion from NATO. The plan would also limit the size of Ukraine’s military to 600,000 troops.
In a candid conversation with Axios, Bacon expressed his outrage over the plan, stating he was “so angry” that he seriously contemplated stepping away from political life altogether. His frustration is indicative of the divide within the Republican Party regarding foreign policy, particularly concerning Ukraine. Bacon, a centrist who champions a hawkish stance on foreign affairs, denounced the proposal as the “Witkoff Ukrainian surrender plan,” a title that reflects his view of the agreement as a capitulation to Russian interests.
Despite his anger, Bacon ultimately decided against resignation. “In the end, I have a commitment to our constituents to fulfill my term,” he noted, showing a sense of obligation to the voters he represents. This acknowledgment reveals a commitment to duty that many constituents appreciate, especially from a leader who isn’t afraid to voice dissenting opinions.
Bacon is often identified as one of the remaining “RINOs” in Congress—a label used to describe Republicans viewed as insufficiently loyal to the party line. His criticisms of Trump’s administration are well-documented. Just a few months ago, he called for the removal of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth regarding a classified information leak, further demonstrating his willingness to speak out against leadership when he disagrees.
Adding to this backdrop, Bacon announced his plans to retire in 2027, a decision he attributes to a desire for a lifestyle that allows more family time. He shared his sentiments about the demanding nature of being a Congressman, referencing 14-hour days and weeks spent away from home in Washington, D.C. His struggle is a familiar narrative among public servants; the pressures of high office can often take a significant toll on personal lives.
In his statement, Bacon remarked, “Some like to spin my retirement from Congress to fit their own wishes,” suggesting that public perceptions don’t always align with the reality of a politician’s decisions. This underscores the complex relationship between public service and personal sacrifice, showing that even seasoned lawmakers face challenges in balancing their duties and personal well-being.
As Bacon grapples with his role in Congress while contemplating the implications of the Trump administration’s policies, his story serves as a microcosm of the broader conflict within the Republican Party. The decision to support a controversial peace plan highlights how individual perspectives can clash with party ideologies, leading to friction among lawmakers.
This situation reveals deeper questions about the future of the Republican Party and the direction it might take as leaders like Bacon prepare to exit the scene. How new and returning lawmakers navigate foreign policy, particularly regarding crucial issues like Ukraine, may shape the party’s identity in the coming years.
"*" indicates required fields
