You know what’s funny about Washington?
The people who spent years telling us Donald Trump was the one constantly blowing up diplomatic norms now can’t stop publishing books about foreign leaders blowing up meetings with Donald Trump.
Every few months another insider book arrives promising shocking new revelations from behind closed doors. Usually it’s some variation of “everyone was alarmed,” “everyone was furious,” or “everyone thought disaster was imminent.”
This time the star of the show is Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
And if these reported excerpts are accurate, it sounds like some members of Trump’s team weren’t exactly hanging his picture on the office wall.
For three years, American taxpayers poured hundreds of billions of dollars into supporting Ukraine while Washington treated Zelenskyy as something between a wartime hero and an untouchable international celebrity. Meanwhile, critics increasingly questioned whether gratitude, accountability, and realistic expectations were getting lost somewhere along the way.
If the accounts in this new book are accurate, it appears some people inside the administration were asking those same questions.
In the forthcoming book by New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan claims tensions between President Donald Trump’s team and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy were running high long before their now-famous Oval Office confrontation.
According to excerpts published by The Guardian from Regime Change, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent allegedly opposed hosting Zelenskyy at the White House in early 2025 and repeatedly expressed frustration with the Ukrainian leader behind closed doors.
Among the reported comments attributed to Bessent: “I’ve dealt with this little f****r.”
The book claims Bessent also described Zelenskyy as: “the special-needs child for the Europeans.”
And perhaps the quote destined to dominate headlines: “Mr Bean on crack.”
The book also claims several Trump advisers worried a White House visit could end badly before it even began. According to the authors, then-national security adviser Mike Waltz unsuccessfully encouraged Zelenskyy to wear a suit for the occasion, while Bessent reportedly argued that no meeting should occur until a proposed minerals agreement had already been signed.
That concern turned out to be well founded.
The Oval Office meeting ultimately erupted into a highly public confrontation involving Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Zelenskyy, ending what was expected to be a diplomatic event and becoming one of the most talked-about foreign policy moments of Trump’s second term.
Afterward, Bessent publicly blasted Zelenskyy’s performance. Speaking to Bloomberg Television, he called it: “one of the greatest diplomatic own goals in history.”
He continued: “I was shocked, shocked that President Zelenskyy would come into the Oval Office, behave like this, speak to the president, speak to the vice-president, but more importantly, disrespect the American people like this.”
The book also describes an earlier meeting between Bessent and Zelenskyy in Kyiv regarding the minerals agreement.
According to the authors, the discussion quickly deteriorated into a heated confrontation. “For 45 minutes, the men berated each other.”
The account claims the exchange became so tense that Bessent finally looked at Zelenskyy and asked: “What the f**k do you want to do?”
Whether every detail is accurate will undoubtedly be debated once the book is released. That’s the nature of Washington tell-all books, where every participant suddenly develops a different memory of the same meeting.
Still, behind the public displays of solidarity, there appears to have been growing frustration inside parts of the administration over Ukraine’s expectations, America’s financial commitments, and Zelenskyy’s negotiating style.
That’s a far more important story than any nickname. Because while Washington insiders will spend days obsessing over the phrase “Mr. Bean on crack,” many Americans are likely to focus on a simpler question: After years of sending money, weapons, and political support overseas, how much leverage should the United States expect to have when it asks for something in return? The answer to that question may explain the tension far better than any colorful quote ever could.
