The two leaders are meeting as part of the Irish government’s traditional St Patrick’s Day series of engagements.

Earlier, Martin attended a breakfast hosted by Vice-President JD Vance.

Speaking at the breakfast he said that US “has been a steadfast friend of Ireland for centuries”.

He said the peace process was a “signature achievement of US foreign policy”, adding that Ireland is “ready to play our part in supporting work to end conflict and to secure peace in the Ukraine or in the Middle East or wherever”.

Martin welcomed the “progress that has clearly been made” as a result of the Trump administration’s “unrelenting focus and effort” to secure peace.

Vance described the US-Ireland relationship as “one of the great alliances and great friendships between nations”.

He added that Ireland is a country with “incredibly community… beautiful landscape and also a lot of interesting technological growth”.

“One of the more robust areas for us to work on with our Irish friends in the years to come is going to be technology and particularly artificial intelligence,” he said.

The taoiseach is the first EU leader to return to the Oval Office since the president’s bust-up with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Discussions are expected to cover a broad range of issues, including the deep ties between the US and Ireland, shared global challenges, including the war in Ukraine and the situation in the Middle East, as well as the two countries’ economic relationship.

The bilateral meeting comes amid heightened concern over the future of Ireland’s economy, which is heavily reliant on US multinationals.

Trump sees this as a trade imbalance and is keen to entice those companies back to the US.

The taoiseach arrived at the White House hours after the EU announced it will impose counter tariffs on €26 billion ($28bn) worth of US goods from next month.

The move is in retaliation to Trump’s 25% tariffs on all steel and aluminium imports into the US, which came into effect overnight.

However, Martin said he would use his visit to the Oval Office to highlight an “increasingly two-way” trade and investment relationship.

“Ireland is the sixth-largest source of foreign direct investment in the US, supporting hundreds and thousands of jobs across the US,” he said.

“This substantial investment underscores the commitment of Irish enterprises to the US market and reflects a deepening economic interdependence between the two countries.”

The meeting is also an opportunity for the taoiseach to update Trump on the situation in Northern Ireland, recognising the huge contribution the US has made to securing peace.

First Minister Michelle O’Neill will not be heading to the White House as she is boycotting the St Patrick’s Day festivities there due to Trump’s stance on Gaza.

However, Deputy First Minister Emma Little-Pengelly will be at the White House reception on Wednesday and is likely to meet Trump.

The two executive ministers led a delegation to North Carolina earlier in the week alongside representatives from Queen’s University Belfast, Invest NI, Catalyst and Software NI.

NI Chamber CEO Suzanne Wylie said the visit was part of a long-term process and they would be inviting a trade mission back to Northern Ireland in the summer from North Carolina.

However, there has been more geopolitical uncertainty this year than last year, including President Trump’s introduction of some tariffs.

She said that while there was uncertainty across the globe right now, “businesses really just want to create the relationships and get on with doing business with each other and continue to look for further investment in some of our innovative companies”.

Speaking to BBC News NI ahead of the meeting between Trump and Martin, Democrat member of the House of Representatives Brendan Boyle said that “what the Trump administration is doing with respect to tariffs makes no economic sense, and it makes no sense in terms of our national security”.

Boyle said that imposing tariffs on Canada suggests that no country is “safe fully from this sort of madness”, including Ireland.

He added that Martin should “remind President Trump that Ireland, despite its small size, is one of the largest investors in the United States and one of the largest job creators in the United States”.

“On the one hand, [Trump] likes to say, you know, we’re the best, he’s the best, He’s the greatest. Everything is a superlative.

“But then in the next breath, he says, we’re suckers, we’re losers, we’re being taken advantage of by every other country.”

Boyle said that Ireland “punches well above its weight” in terms of investment in the United states, and reminding Trump of that “would go a long way”.

This will be the tightest of political tightropes for Micheál Martin.

He’s got a €50bn (£42bn) tax treasure chest to protect and can’t afford any slip ups.

His moment of jeopardy may come when President Trump invites questions from the press.

Pressure points include tariffs and Dublin’s perceived anti-Israel bias.

Luckily for the taoiseach the move towards a ceasefire in Ukraine and the resumption of US military aid may dominate the questions.

Trading relationships and tariffs may be one for another day.

The taoiseach had hoped the move towards a ceasefire in Ukraine and the resumption of US military aid would have dominate the questions

But the EU decision to hit back in the looming tariff war imposing €26bn on US imports could put a strain on discussions in Whitehouse

“There’s a certain level of decorum that I expect from political leaders, especially in front of cameras,” Nate Vance – who spent three years volunteering with the Ukrainian military after Russia’s full-scale invasion – told the BBC.

It follows his earlier comment that Trump and Vance were acting like “useful idiots” for President Vladimir Putin in their handling of the conflict.

Last month US and Russian officials held direct talks on ending the war. US and Ukrainian officials are currently in Saudi Arabia for talks.

Nate Vance told the BBC’s PM programme on Monday that he was “not happy” with the way in which the White House meeting had been handled by his cousin and Trump.

“I’m kind of attached to the Ukrainian issue but, looking at that, if it were some other completely neutral issue and I saw White House officials and hack journalists that are political belittling a foreign leader, I’d be like ‘what the hell is going on?'” he told the BBC.

The televised Oval Office meeting between the leaders quickly turned heated, with Trump threatening to withdraw support from Ukraine if a deal was not made and accusing the Ukrainian President of “gambling with World War Three”.

Vance called Zelensky “disrespectful” for “litigating” the dispute in front of the media and accused him of not expressing gratitude for America’s support during the war.

Nate Vance said that he did not agree that Zelensky had failed to show appreciation. “Zelensky does a daily or nightly address and thanks everyone who supports Ukraine on a daily basis,” he said.

He said that perhaps the Ukrainian leader had not shown “enough deference to Donald Trump” but that it would be “odd for my cousin and Donald Trump to ask for deference because they’ve been actively working against his initiatives for the past three years”.

Zelensky was eventually asked to leave the White House and a planned news conference was cancelled.

Following the meeting, the Trump administration halted military aid, satellite imagery and intelligence sharing to Kyiv.

Vance’s first major foreign speech, at the Munich Security Conference in mid-February, caught many by surprise.

Rather than focusing on the war raging in Ukraine, the US vice-president only briefly mentioned the bloodiest European conflict since World War Two.

Instead, he used his debut on the international stage to berate close US allies about immigration and free speech, suggesting the European establishment was anti-democratic. He accused them of ignoring the wills of their people and questioned what shared values they were truly banding together with the US to defend.

“If you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you, nor for that matter is there anything you can do for the American people,” he warned.

It was a bold and perhaps unexpected way to introduce himself to the world – by angering European allies. But days later he was back in the news, at the centre of a blistering row with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, whom he accused of being ungrateful.

For those who have been studying the rise of Vance, these two episodes came as no surprise.

The vice-president has come to represent an intellectual wing of the conservative movement that gives expression to Trumpism and in particular how its America First mantra applies beyond its borders. In writings and interviews, Vance has expressed an ideology that seems to join the dots between American workers, global elites and the role of the US in the wider world.

On the campaign trail with Donald Trump last year, Vance spent much of his time sharply criticising Democrats – the usual attack-dog duties that traditionally get dished out to running mates – and sparring with reporters.

And while Elon Musk’s outsized and unconventional role in the Trump administration initially overshadowed him, that Munich speech and the Oval Office showdown have raised the profile of Trump’s deputy.

It’s also led to questions about the winding ideological journey he’s made during his years in the conservative movement – and what he truly believes now.

“He’s much more of a pragmatist than an ideologue,” said James Orr, associate professor of philosophy of religion at the University of Cambridge and a friend whom Vance has described as his “British sherpa”.

“He’s able to articulate what is and is not in the American interest,” Orr said. “And the American interest is not the interest of some abstract utopia or matrix of propositions and ideas, but the American people.”

Vance has repeatedly returned to this “America First” – or perhaps “Americans First” – theme in speeches, drawing a line between what he castigates as Washington’s economic and foreign policy orthodoxy abroad and the struggles of the left-behind American working class at home.

At the Republican National Convention last summer, for example, he lamented how in small towns across the US “jobs were sent overseas and children were sent to war”. And he attacked then-President Joe Biden, saying: “For half a century, he’s been a champion of every single policy initiative to make America weaker and poorer.”

But Vance is also someone who, after a tough upbringing in an Ohio family with Appalachian roots and sudden fame on the back of a bestselling memoir, Hillbilly Elegy, has tried out many different views.

Not only is he a former “Never Trumper” who described the US president in 2016 as “reprehensible” and “an idiot”, his book places much of the blame for the plight of the rural poor squarely on the choices made by individuals.

More recently he’s shifted that blame to elites – a group he’s variously defined as Democrats, conventional Republicans, liberals, corporate leaders, globalists and academics.

In speeches, Vance regularly argues that “America is not just an idea… America is a nation.”

He couples this statement with an anecdote about his family’s ancestral graveyard in Kentucky, where he says he, his wife and their children will one day be buried, arguing that family and homeland are more important than some of America’s traditional core ideas.

In Vance’s view, the Trump administration’s priority should be to make life better for Americans who have been in the country for generations, and yet have little of the nation’s vast wealth.

Rod Dreher, a conservative American writer who is also a friend of the vice-president, said Vance’s thinking arises from a belief that “moderate normie Republicans… failed to offer anything to stop the so-called forever wars, and they also failed to offer anything to ordinary Americans like where he comes from, who are suffering economically from globalism and from the effects of mass migration and fentanyl”.

“He got red-pilled, so to speak, by Donald Trump,” Dreher told BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme this week.

“Red-pilled” is internet slang for suddenly waking up to a supposedly hidden truth, as featured in The Matrix movies. It’s commonly used by those on the right online who believe they have special access to reality and that people with liberal, centrist or establishment views are uncritical thinkers.

Vance is a vice-president who, more than his boss, seems extremely plugged into internet culture. He’s an enthusiastic user of X, often jumping directly into arguments rather than using it, as many politicians do, as a platform for announcements.

His appearances on fringe right-wing podcasts, while he was trying to drum up support for a Senate run, provided fodder for his opponents, as did provocative trollish comments such as that the US was being run by “childless cat ladies”.

Married to the daughter of Indian immigrants, he has rejected and been rejected by members of the alt-right even if he does echo some of their views. However, he does have friends and allies both at the top of Silicon Valley and in some of its lesser known corners.

After graduating from Yale Law School, he was brought into the world of venture capital by influential Silicon Valley conservative Peter Thiel, who later funded his US Senate campaign.

He has cited people like the blogger Curtis Yarvin, a key guru in the “neo-reactionary” movement which dreams up fantasies of technologically-assisted, hyper-capitalist societies led by powerful monarchs.

His familiarity with the internet’s fringes was further demonstrated when he spread false rumours about immigrants eating pets and an allegation about Ukrainian corruption – which the BBC traced back to Moscow.

“He sort of stews in this online world,” said Cathy Young, a writer for the conservative, anti-Trump media outlet The Bulwark.

At the same time, Young said, his anecdote about family graveyards and homeland suggests another political tendency – a “disturbing undertone of nativism”.

“That bothers some people and rightly so,” she said. “Part of the American legacy is that we are a nation of immigrants. [Former Republican President] Ronald Reagan talked about that, about one of the distinctive things about this country is that anyone can come here from any part of the world and become an American.”

Vance’s “Americans First” thinking clearly extends to the issue of the war in Ukraine. When he was a senator, he was often critical of America’s involvement in the war and the huge sums spent on it, his former Senate colleague Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, recalled.

“His position then was very much like what it is now… that the conflict must end,” Hawley told the BBC. “It needs to end in a way that’s maximally advantageous to the security of the United States and it needs to end in a way that gets our European allies to take increased responsibility.”

Vance regularly accused the Biden administration of being more interested in Ukraine than in stemming illegal immigration. Writing in 2022, during his Senate campaign and after the Russian invasion, he said: “I will be damned if I am going to prioritize Ukraine’s eastern border right now when our own southern border is engulfed by a human tsunami of illegal migrants.”

His views burst out into the open during that dramatic argument with President Zelensky in the Oval Office. Vance accused Zelensky of lacking respect, of sending politicians on a “propaganda tour” of Ukraine and of being insufficiently thankful for US aid.

“Offer some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the president who’s trying to save your country,” he told the Ukrainian president.

The argument left European leaders scrambling to defend Zelensky, while also trying to maintain negotiations over a possible peace deal.

Vance then prompted widespread outrage from allies when he poured scorn on the idea of security guarantees in the form of troops “from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years”.

He later denied he was talking about the UK or France, the only two European countries that have publicly stated their willingness to send peacekeepers to Ukraine.

But the vice-president’s willingness to step on the toes of allies reflect a world view which, in his words, has little time for “moralisms about ‘this country is good’, ‘this country is bad'”.

“That doesn’t mean you have to have a complete moral blind spot, but it means that you have to be honest about the countries that you’re dealing with, and there’s a complete failure to do that with most of our foreign policy establishment in this country,” he told a New York Times columnist last year.

His tone has shifted from the two years he spent in the US Senate before being picked by Trump. Democrat Cory Booker remembered Vance as “very pragmatic and thoughtful”.

“That’s why some of this stuff surprises me,” Booker told the BBC.

Others detect the same disconnect.

David Frum, now a writer for The Atlantic magazine, said that Vance’s views have changed significantly from when he first commissioned the former marine, who was attending Ohio State University at the time, to write for his website on conservative politics more than 15 years ago.

“He was not in any way the culture warrior that he is today,” Frum said.

Frum, a former George W Bush speechwriter and staunch critic of Trump, said that Vance’s view of Russia represented “ideological admiration”.

In Munich, as he spoke about free speech, the vice-president cited cases involving conservatives and Christians in Western countries but avoided any mention of Russia’s harsh clampdowns on expression.

Vance and his allies reject that he is sympathetic to Putin.

“I’ve never once argued that Putin is a kind and friendly person,” Vance, then an Ohio senator, said in a speech at the 2024 Munich Security Conference.

“We don’t have to agree with him. We can contest him and we often will contest him,” he said. “But the fact that he’s a bad guy does not mean we can’t engage in basic diplomacy and prioritising America’s interests.”

The BBC has asked the White House for comment on Vance’s stance in relation to Ukraine and Russia.

A quick end to the conflict in Ukraine is, in Vance’s view, not only about putting a stop to billions of dollars being spent thousands of miles away.

He himself has said that there are bigger issues for the US and its friends to focus on than Ukraine, namely the threat of China, which he has called “our most significant competitor… for the next 20 or 30 years”.

Vance’s views on Ukraine and his willingness to publicly air them provided a dramatic moment in the early days of Trump’s second presidential term.

But it also offered a vivid illustration of the vice-president’s ideology, his prominence in the Trump administration and how he views America’s place in the world.

Trump in response said he “appreciates” a letter he reportedly received from Zelensky, reading excerpts during an address to Congress that echoed the Ukrainian leader’s statement.

Their relationship had frayed when the US president accused his Ukrainian counterpart of being “disrespectful” and “gambling with World War Three” during the tense meeting on 28 February.

Zelensky, at times frustrated with the tone of the comments from Trump and his Vice-President JD Vance, attempted during the conversation to rebut the claims they made, and said there could be “no compromise” with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

But the Oval Office meeting was not the first time the two men have exchanged barbs.

Here is a look back at what the two have said to, and about, one another, and how their public relationship has developed over the years.

21 April 2019: On the day Zelensky is elected president of Ukraine, Trump, still in his first term, calls Zelensky to congratulate him. Trump says it was an “incredible election” and adds that “you will do a great job”.

2019: Allies of Trump begin stoking allegations that Joe Biden, then Democratic frontrunner for president, lobbied Ukraine to dismiss its top prosecutor to stymie an investigation into energy firm Burisma, of which his son, Hunter, sat on the board. The allegations were later found to be fabricated, and the prosecutor was removed from office for corruption.

25 July 2019: In a phone conversation that would become the basis for Trump’s first impeachment, Trump asks Zelensky to “get to the bottom” of the allegations. Zelensky says the evidence would reviewed later that year.

29 September 2020: In the first presidential debate between Trump and Biden, Trump alludes to the allegations, saying: “Once you became vice-president, [Hunter] made a fortune in Ukraine and China and Moscow and various other places.”

24 February 2022: Russia begins its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which Trump describes as “appalling”. He adds that Zelensky is “brave” for remaining in Kyiv, and claims the invasion “would never have happened” if he had been elected in 2020.

5 March 2023: “Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, I will have the disastrous war between Russia and Ukraine settled,” Trump tells a conservative conference. “And it will take me no longer than one day.”

May 2024: Zelensky’s term expires but he remains in office, as scheduled elections in Ukraine do not go ahead because the nation remains under martial law. He previously said that “now is not the time for elections”.

22 September 2024: Zelensky tells the New Yorker magazine: “My feeling is that Trump doesn’t really know how to stop the war, even if he might think he knows how.” He adds that “many” leaders have thought they could, but have been unable to.

25 September 2024: On the campaign trail, Trump accuses Zelensky of “making little nasty aspersions toward your favourite president, me”, adding: “Any deal, even the worst deal, would have been better than what we have right now.”

27 September 2024: Zelensky and Trump meet in New York. Zelensky says they have a “common view that the war has to be stopped and [Russian President Vladimir] Putin can’t win”, while Trump says he will resolve the war “very quickly”.

6 November 2024: Trump is re-elected US president. Zelensky is among the first world leaders to call to congratulate him, writing shortly after that he looked forward to a “strong” US under Trump’s “decisive leadership”.

22 January 2025: “It’s time to MAKE A DEAL,” Trump writes on Truth Social. “We can do it the easy way or the hard way.” He adds that without a deal, he will be forced to place further economic restrictions on Russia.

23 January 2025: Trump tells the World Economic Forum that Zelensky “wants to make a deal” but Putin “might not”.

15 February 2025: Zelensky writes that he has begun working with Trump’s team, adding: “The world is looking up to America as the power that has the ability to not only stop the war but also help ensure the reliability of peace afterward.”

18 February 2025: US-Russia talks about ending the war begin in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Zelensky tells reporters that the talks took place “behind Ukraine’s back”, adding: “Once again, decisions about Ukraine are being made without Ukraine.”

18 February 2025: After the talks, Trump says he was “disappointed” by Ukraine’s reaction and appeared to blame Ukraine for starting the war, adding that the country “could have made a deal” earlier.

19 February 2025: Zelensky says the US president is caught in a Russian “disinformation space”. He adds: “We are standing strong on our own two feet. I am counting on… the unity of Europe and the pragmatism of America.”

19 February 2025: Trump accuses Zelensky of talking the US into spending $350bn (£277bn), and of claiming that half of that money was now missing. Trump calls Zelensky a “dictator” who has “done a terrible job”.

23 February 2025: Zelensky tells a forum that he isn’t offended by Trump calling him a “dictator”. He says: “If I were a dictator, I’d be offended. But I take it. Well, okay, good.”

25 February 2025: Ukraine’s Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal says a major minerals deal with the US has been agreed. The same day, Trump says he is expecting Zelensky in Washington to sign the deal later that week.

26 February 2025: At a cabinet meeting, Trump says the presence of US workers extracting rare earth metals in Ukraine would provide “automatic security”. Zelensky says the success of the deal, formally backed by his government that evening, would depend on the outcome of his meeting with Trump.

27 February 2025: Asked by the BBC whether he sticks by his claim that Zelensky is a “dictator”, Trump replies: “Did I say that? I can’t believe I said that. Next question.” He also calls Zelensky “very brave”.

27 February 2025: After Trump’s talks with UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer at the White House, the US president tells reporters he predicts a “very good meeting” with Zelensky on Friday.

28 February 2025: Zelenksy arrives in Washington to discuss an agreement on sharing Ukraine’s mineral resources.

28 February 2025: In a tense public meeting in the Oval Office, Trump accuses Zelensky of being “disrespectful” to the US – something the Ukrainian leader rejects – adding: “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.”

28 February 2025: Zelensky says of the war: “You have nice ocean and don’t feel now. But you will feel it in the future.” Trump responds: “Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel. You’re in no position to dictate what we’re going to feel.”

28 February 2025: Trump ends the meeting by saying Zelensky is not being “very thankful” and that “this is going to make great television”.

28 February 2025: Trump writes on social media: “It’s amazing what comes out through emotion, and I have determined that President Zelensky is not ready for peace if America is involved, because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don’t want advantage, I want PEACE.”

3 March 2025: The US announces it is “pausing and reviewing” its military aid to Ukraine. A White House official tells the BBC’s US news partner CBS its reason is to “ensure that it is contributing to a solution… The President has been clear that he is focused on peace. We need our partners to be committed to that goal as well.”

4 March 2025: Zelensky releases a statement on social media describing the White House row as “regrettable”. He says it is “time to make things right”, and he is ready to work under Trump’s “strong leadership” to achieve lasting peace.

4 March 2025: During an address to the joint houses of Congress, Trump says he “appreciates” a letter he says he received from Zelensky. Trump reads excerpts from the letter, which reportedly says “Ukraine is ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible to bring lasting peace closer. Nobody wants peace more than the Ukrainians… My team and I stand ready to work under President Trump’s strong leadership to get a peace that lasts.”

UK opposition politicians accused JD Vance of disrespecting British forces, after he told Fox News a US stake in Ukraine’s economy was a “better security guarantee than 20,000 troops from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years”.

The UK and France have said they would be willing to put troops on the ground in Ukraine as part of a peace deal.

Vance has since insisted he did not “even mention the UK or France,” adding both had “fought bravely alongside the US over the last 20 years, and beyond”.

However, he did not specify which country or countries he was referring to.

In a post of social media, he added: “But let’s be direct: there are many countries who are volunteering (privately or publicly) support who have neither the battlefield experience nor the military equipment to do anything meaningful.”

So far only the UK and France have publicly committed troops towards policing any potential peace deal in Ukraine, although Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has previously said a “number of countries” have agreed to commit troops.

Earlier, Vance’s original comments had drawn criticism from UK opposition politicians.

Conservative shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge pointed out both the UK and France deployed forces alongside the US in Afghanistan, adding: “It’s deeply disrespectful to ignore such service and sacrifice.”

Asked about Vance’s comments later, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said the vice-president did not call Britain a “random country”.

“A lot of people are getting carried away. They’re saying loads of things and getting quite animated. Let’s keep cool heads,” she told GB News.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said Vance was “wrong, wrong, wrong”, adding that the UK “stood by America” for 20 years in Afghanistan.

Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson Helen Maguire, a former captain in the Royal Military Police who served in Iraq, urged the UK’s ambassador to the US, Peter Mandelson, to call on Vance to apologise for the comments.

“JD Vance is erasing from history the hundreds of British troops who gave their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan,” she said.

“I saw firsthand how American and British soldiers fought bravely together shoulder to shoulder. Six of my own regiment, the Royal Military Police, didn’t return home from Iraq. This is a sinister attempt to deny that reality.”

Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty, a former British Army officer who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, said: “The disrespect shown by the new US vice-president to the sacrifices of our service personnel is unacceptable.”

Speaking after Vance posted on social media to defend his comments, Obese-Jecty told BBC Two’s Politics Live programme: “It’s difficult to see who he was talking about, if he wasn’t talking about Britain and France.”

He called on the vice-president to clarify which countries he was referring to, and to apologise, adding that Vance had caused “real offence”.

Downing Street refused to be drawn on whether the prime minister found the comments insulting or disrespectful but said he was “full of admiration for all British troops who have served, for instance in Iraq and Afghanistan”.

The UK joined the US invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, following the 9/11 attacks, with France also sending forces to the country.

More than 150,000 British personnel have served in Afghanistan over the last 20 years, with the final troops withdrawing in 2021.

The UK was also part of a US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, with British forces in the country peaking at 46,000.

Vance’s comments came as the US paused military aid to Ukraine, following an explosive spat between President Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office last week.

Zelensky left the White House before a proposed deal on sharing Ukrainian minerals with American companies could be signed.

Speaking about the proposal, Vance told Fox News: “The very best security guarantee is to give Americans economic upside in the future of Ukraine.

“That is a way better security guarantee than 20,000 troops from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years.”

Sir Keir has said US security guarantees – such as air cover – will be needed to deter Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine again, if there is a deal to end the war.

However, Trump has so far refused to offer this, instead arguing that US workers in Ukraine as part of a minerals deal could provide such assurances.

This is not the first time that the US has withheld military aid. Republicans in Congress blocked then-President Joe Biden’s largest tranche of military assistance for Ukraine in the summer of 2023.

Then, Ukraine just about managed to eke out its existing stocks of ammunition with the help of Europe.

Congress finally approved the £60bn aid package in the spring of 2024. It was just in time – Ukraine was struggling to fend off a renewed Russian offensive in Kharkiv. The arrival of the delayed US weapons helped turn the tide.

As in 2024, it may be months before the effects of cutting off US aid are felt – at least in terms of ammunition and hardware. European nations have slowly ramped up their production of artillery shells. Overall Europe now provides Ukraine with 60 percent of its aid – more than the US.

However, US military support is still vital to Ukraine. One Western official recently described it as “the cream” in terms of weapons.

Ukraine’s ability to protect its people and cities has heavily relied on sophisticated US air defence systems – such as Patriot batteries and NASAMS – jointly developed with Norway.

The US has given Ukraine the ability to carry out long range strikes – with HIMARS and ATACM missiles. The US has limited their use inside Russia, but they have still been vital to hit high value targets inside occupied territories.

It is not just quality, but quantity too. As the world’s most powerful military, it has been able to send hundreds of surplus Humvees and armoured vehicles – numbers that smaller European armies could never match.

The absence of some of this aid may take time to filter down to the frontline. But there could be a more worrying immediate impact, not least in terms of intelligence sharing.

No nation can match the US in terms of space-based surveillance, intelligence gathering and communications. And it is not just provided by the US military, but commercial companies too.

Take Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite communication network. Every Ukrainian position I have visited on the frontline has a Starlink dish.

They are used to relay the latest information on the battlefield. They have been essential to co-ordinate artillery and drone strikes.

In the past, the Pentagon has admitted that it has been funding this lifeline. Given that Elon Musk is a key figure in the US administration, it seems highly unlikely that he will now be willing to foot the bill. He too is a harsh critic of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Will the US prevent European countries from sending their US-made equipment to Ukraine? When Europe wanted to provide US-manufactured F-16 jets to Ukraine, it first had to receive the approval of Washington.

And then what about the maintenance of US-supplied equipment? The US has also been training Ukrainian forces and then helping them maintain US-supplied equipment.

Biden lifted restrictions on US contractors working in Ukraine towards the end of his term. F-16 jets in particular need engineers and spares to keep on running.

Trump’s decision to pause aid may, to many in Ukraine and beyond, seem petulant. But there is also clearly a political aim to force them to the negotiating table sooner.

The hope among European allies is that it will just be a pause. Without US support, Ukraine will find it an even harsher struggle for survival.

They held up pro-Ukraine signs on the route in Waitsfield that Vance and his family were expected to take on their way to go skiing.

US media reported the family moved to an undisclosed location from their planned ski resort because of the demonstrations.

Hundreds of people also gathered in New York, Los Angeles and Boston on Saturday to express their support for Ukraine – a day after the furious row in the Oval Office.

The extraordinary scenes in the Oval Office saw Vance accuse the Ukrainian president of being disrespectful to the US.

Trump also clashed with Zelensky, telling him to make a deal with Russia “or we are out” and accusing him of “gambling with World War Three”.

A protest in Waitsfield against the Trump-Vance administration had been organised earlier in the week – before the US president and vice-president’s clash with Zelensky – but many signs referenced the row and Russia’s war with Ukraine.

“I think [Friday’s] performance at the White House has probably galvanised even more people to come out today,” Judy Daly, from Indivisible Mad River Valley, the group which organised the protest, told Vermont Public Radio.

“[Vance] crossed the line,” protester Cori Giroux added.

Ahead of the Vance family’s trip, Vermont’s governor Phil Scott had urged people to “be respectful” to them.

Scott, the Republican governor who refused to vote for Trump, said: “I welcome the vice-president and his family to Vermont and hope they enjoy their weekend here.

“It’s no surprise they chose Vermont, we’ve had a lot of snow this winter, which has been good for our economy.”

He added: “I hope Vermonters remember the vice-president is here on a family trip with his young children and, while we may not always agree, we should be respectful.

“Please join me in welcoming them to Vermont, and hoping they have an opportunity to experience what makes our state, and Vermonters, so special.”

Vance, who has three young children with his wife Usha, has not publicly commented on the protests. Counter-protesters supporting Trump and Vance were also reportedly in Waitsfield.

Separately, demonstrators also gathered outside Tesla stores in the US on Saturday to protest against Elon Musk’s push to slash government spending.

Musk, the billionaire chief executive of Tesla, has been tasked by Trump to oversee the Department of Government Efficiency, more popularly known as Doge.

After the meeting at the White House, Zelensky flew to the UK where he was welcomed by Prime Minister Keir Starmer and on Sunday he joined European leaders and Canada’s Justin Trudeau in London for a summit to discuss ways of ending the war in Ukraine and ensuring Europe’s security.

Ahead of the summit, Starmer said the UK and France would work with Ukraine “on a plan to stop the fighting” with Russia and would then “discuss that plan with the United States”.

He told the BBC that his “driving purpose” right now was to act as a “bridge” between the two men.

Asked about how he felt watching the spat in the White House, Starmer sought to play down the incident, saying “nobody wants to see that” and admitted he felt “uncomfortable”.

“You’re all dressed up today,” Trump said as he greeted him, referring to Zelensky’s military-style black sweatshirt, adorned with the Ukrainian trident.

Zelensky has eschewed suits, button-down shirts and ties – even during important meetings with world leaders and an address to the US Congress – since the start of the full-scale Russian invasion of his country began in 2022.

The Ukrainian leader has said his choice of military clothing is a show of solidarity with soldiers fighting the Russian army on the war’s frontlines.

But it has long been an irritant for critics of US aid to Ukraine, and after years as a talking point among some right-wing critics, the issue came to global attention in a spectacular way during Friday’s now infamous Oval Office meeting with Trump and US Vice-President JD Vance.

A question to Zelensky from a US reporter accused him of disrespecting the occasion by not wearing a suit and this immediately changed the atmosphere in the room, according to BBC reporters present.

And a short time later, larger issues of respect and gratitude fuelled the extraordinary argument that saw the US president and vice-president upbraid their European ally in front of the world’s TV cameras.

When the meeting was opened up to questions from reporters, one came from Brian Glenn, chief White House correspondent for conservative cable network Real America’s Voice.

“Why don’t you wear a suit?” Glenn asked. “You’re at the highest level in this country’s office, and you refuse to wear a suit.

“Do you own a suit?” he continued. “A lot of Americans have problems with you not respecting the dignity of this office.”

The aggressive questioning marked the moment when the Ukrainian president – who until then seemed to be having a diplomatic, even friendly, conversation with Trump – first appeared tired and irritated.

“I will wear costume after this war will finish,” Zelensky replied. (The word “suit” can be translated into Ukrainian as “kostyum”.)

The Ukrainian president then made a verbal jab at the reporter.

“Maybe something like yours, yes. Maybe something better, I don’t know,” he said, to laughter in the room. “Maybe something cheaper.”

Watch: Key moments in Oval Office, including reporter’s dig at Zelensky’s outfit

Glenn’s question gave voice to a longstanding gripe in the world of Maga politics, where some – like JD Vance – argue that the Ukrainian leader does not seem to be showing enough gratitude or respect to the US for three years of military aid.

A former local TV reporter in Dallas who became better known in conservative circles for his work at another pro-Trump channel, Right Side Broadcasting Network, Glenn is an unabashed Trump fan. Last year he told Politico that he was “100 percent behind President Trump and the America First agenda.”

He is also reportedly dating Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Georgia congresswoman who is one of Trump’s most outspoken supporters.

Glenn was in the room as part of the White House press pool, a group of reporters which covers the president at official events on behalf of the wider media.

The Trump administration took control of the pool this week from an association of journalists, saying it would give more access to “new voices”.

Real America’s Voice, which was founded in 2020, is a relatively obscure right-wing cable news outlet, one of several pro-Trump channels that have cropped up in recent years. Its guests and hosts have spread conspiracy theories about a variety of subjects, including the 2020 presidential election, the 2021 Capitol riot and QAnon.

Its show line-up includes some big names from the Maga world, including Trump’s former chief advisor Steve Bannon, classic rocker turned political activist Ted Nugent and Charlie Kirk, the founder of the conservative Turning Point group. The BBC contacted the network for comment.

After the Oval Office spat, Glenn posted online that he had “extreme empathy for the people of Ukraine” but said that Zelensky’s lack of a suit demonstrated “his inner disrespect” for the US.

Zelensky’s defenders online posted pictures of Winston Churchill wearing casual clothes during World War Two.

Pictures from the period show the British leader wearing jumpsuit-like clothes to a meeting with then-US President Franklin Roosevelt, and he also wore military uniforms and suits during conflabs with world leaders.

After Glenn’s question, the news conference swiftly moved on, to a query about whether the US would send more arms to Ukraine. At the end of an answer Trump referred back to the suit question.

“I do like your clothing,” he quipped, and pointing to Zelensky he said, “I think he’s dressed beautifully.”

Behind the scenes, Trump’s attitude may have been slightly different, according to reports. US news outlet Axios reported that before the meeting, White House staffers had requested that Zelensky wear a suit and were offended when he did not.

However, the two world leaders continued taking questions, more or less cordially, for nearly another 20 minutes before the extraordinary argument broke out, after an interruption by the US vice-president, JD Vance.

Vance repeatedly brought up “respect” – referring to Zelensky as “Mr President” as the Ukrainian leader called him “JD” – and said: “I think it’s disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office and try to litigate this in front of the American media right now”.

The discussion went downhill from there. A suit-less Zelensky was soon ejected from the White House, as relations between the two countries reached a new wartime low.

Hundreds of people gathered in New York, Los Angeles and Boston to express their support for Ukraine after the furious row in the Oval Office.

Protesters holding pro-Ukraine signs also lined a road in Waitsfield, Vermont, where Vice-President Vance and his family were visiting for a ski holiday.

US media reported the family moved to an undisclosed location from their planned ski resort because of the demonstrations.

A protest in Waitsfield against the Trump-Vance administration had been organised earlier in the week – before the US president and vice-president’s clash with Zelensky – but many signs referenced the row and Russia’s war with Ukraine.

“I think [Friday’s] performance at the White House has probably galvanised even more people to come out today,” Judy Daly, from Indivisible Mad River Valley, the group which organised the protest, told Vermont Public Radio.

“[Vance] crossed the line,” protester Cori Giroux added.

Ahead of the Vance family’s trip, Vermont’s governor Phil Scott had urged people to “be respectful” to them.

Scott, the Republican governor who refused to vote for Trump, said: “I welcome the vice-president and his family to Vermont and hope they enjoy their weekend here.

“It’s no surprise they chose Vermont, we’ve had a lot of snow this winter, which has been good for our economy.”

He added: “I hope Vermonters remember the vice-president is here on a family trip with his young children and, while we may not always agree, we should be respectful.

“Please join me in welcoming them to Vermont, and hoping they have an opportunity to experience what makes our state, and Vermonters, so special.”

Vance, who has three young children with his wife Usha, has not publicly commented on the protests. Counter-protesters supporting Trump and Vance were also reportedly in Waitsfield.

Demonstrators also gathered outside Tesla stores across the US on Saturday to protest against Elon Musk’s push to slash government spending.

Musk, the billionaire chief executive of Tesla, has been tasked by US President Trump to oversee the Department of Government Efficiency, more popularly known as Doge.

In extraordinary scenes in the Oval Office on Friday, Trump clashed with the Ukrainian president, telling him to make a deal with Russia “or we are out”.

At one point, Trump told Zelensky he was not thankful enough for US military and political support during Ukraine’s fight against Russia’s invasion, and that he was “gambling with World War Three”.

Vance also accused the Ukrainian president of being disrespectful and “litigating” the situation in front of the media.

Zelensky will join European leaders on Sunday for a summit on the Ukraine war, hosted by UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer.

Ahead of the meeting in London, UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves signed a loan agreement worth £2.26bn ($2.84bn) with her Ukrainian counterpart, to pay for further military support and the rebuilding of Ukraine in future.

It was Vance who led the attack on Zelensky before Donald Trump joined the fray at the White House in a meeting that had been cordial until the vice-president spoke up to laud the president for seeking what he described as a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine-Russia war.

“What kind of diplomacy, JD, you are speaking about?” said Zelensky, who has been critical of direct talks between Washington and Moscow. “What do you mean?”

“I’m talking about the kind of diplomacy that’s going to end the destruction of your country,” Vance responded, tearing into the stunned Ukrainian leader.

“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.”

He also accused Zelensky of having campaigned on behalf of Democrats during the 2024 presidential election. The Ukrainian leader visited a munitions factory in the critical swing state of Pennsylvania last September and met Trump’s rival, Kamala Harris, at the White House.

Vance’s upbraiding of Zelensky drew broad support among Republicans.

“I was very proud of JD Vance standing up for our country,” said South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, a longtime advocate for Ukraine and a foreign policy hawk. He suggested Zelensky should resign.

Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville referred to Zelensky as “that Ukrainian weasel”.

Congressman Mike Lawyer of New York was more measured, saying the meeting was “a missed opportunity for both the United States and Ukraine”.

Vance’s remarkable attack on a visiting head of state is not typical for a US vice-president.

Their job is often – but not always – to help get the president elected and then sit quietly at their boss’s side. To be a loyal lieutenant representing the president on foreign trips – standing by, one heartbeat, so they say, from the presidency.

The contrast with Trump’s first VP, the much more mild-mannered Mike Pence, could not be greater.

But Vance – who is widely seen as serving to articulate the rationale behind Trump’s foreign policy gut instincts – has long been outspokenly sceptical of US aid to Ukraine.

When he was running for the Ohio Senate in 2022, Vance told a podcast: “I’ve got to be honest with you. I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or the other.”

The vice-president derided Trump as an idiot eight years ago, before a political evolution that culminated in him becoming heir apparent to the president’s Make America Great Again movement.

Despite Vance’s popularity among conservative voters, Trump recently said in a Fox News interview that it was “too early” to tell whether the vice-president would be next-in-line to run for president in 2028.

Undeterred, Vance seems to be developing a role as a political brawler for Trump, going even further than the president in his outspoken criticism of the administration’s foes.

One common thread is that many victims of Vance’s tongue-lashing are America’s allies.

It began at the Munich Security Conference last month, a regular port of call for a US vice-president. Kamala Harris would frequently make unmemorable speeches there.

But Vance used the occasion to launch a blistering assault on the state of European democracy, accusing continental leaders of censoring free speech and failing to control immigration.

“If you’re running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you,” he said.

The audience of politicians, generals and diplomats was horrified.

This was not the usual – and now widely accepted – argument that Europe should do more to pay for its own defence and security.

This was a full-blown ideological assault – a sign that the US under Mr Trump is not just pivoting away from Europe, shifting its security focus to China, but is also seeking to promote its own Trump-style populism on the European continent.

Not for nothing did Vance have dinner after his speech with the leadership of Germany’s far-right AfD party.

His speech provoked a backlash from European leaders, writers and academics.

Yet Vance chose to take them on online, engaging in detailed exchanges on X with several, including the historian, Niall Ferguson.

Vance accused him of “moralistic garbage”, “historical illiteracy” and – worst of all – of being a “globalist”.

And if that was not enough, Vance even chose to have a go at the UK prime minister in the Oval Office himself earlier this week.

Out of nowhere, he told Sir Keir Starmer that “there have been infringements on free speech that actually affect not just the British – of course what the British do in their own country is up to them – but also affect American technology companies and, by extension, American citizens”.

The prime minister pushed back firmly, saying “in relation to free speech in the UK, I’m very proud of our history there… We’ve had free speech for a very, very long time in the United Kingdom and it will last for a very, very long time”.

This was an echo of the criticism Vance made in Munich, railing against European regulations on artificial intelligence and social media platforms.

The aim is to tackle disinformation and hate speech that can foment unrest and radicalise people. Vance sees it as a threat to political fellow travellers and US commercial interests, especially in big tech.

Several questions present themselves. Was Vance’s attack on Zelensky premeditated, as some diplomats believe?

White House sources have told US papers it was not.

Is Vance’s new role emerging at Trump’s behest, sharing the load with Elon Musk to dish out punishment to the president’s opponents?

Or is Vance freelancing, already sketching out a role that will form the basis of an election campaign in three years’ time when Trump will not be able to stand again?

Whatever the answers to those questions, Vance is emerging as more than just Trump’s number two.