ÂÜÀòÊÓƵ

The US Department of Defense halted deliveries of Patriot air defense systems and other precision weapons to Ukraine last week following an internal assessment of its own stockpiles. Some of these weapons were already in Poland waiting for final transfer.

The news came as a shock. While the Trump administration has taken a more nuanced approach to Ukraine and Russia than its predecessor, it had continued the flow of weapons to Kyiv as leverage in its effort to bring Moscow to the negotiating table.

The timing could not be worse. Russia has launched some of the most intense aerial bombardments in the history of its invasion, including night-time barrages of more than 400 drones and ballistic missiles at a time. For Ukraine, already stretched thin on ammunition and air defense capabilities, this freeze in support threatens to make a difficult situation even more dire.

The decision also undermines President Donald Trump’s stated goal of ending the war. On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly emphasized the need to bring Russia and Ukraine to a negotiated settlement and made it a cornerstone of his foreign policy. But six months after he returned to the Oval Office, the war appears no closer to resolution than it was on his first day.

There is no doubt the president has been sincere in his desire to bring the two sides to the table. He has called for a ceasefire and for negotiations, and Ukraine has signaled its willingness to work with the White House. The Kremlin, however, has been far more reluctant. Trump has hinted at increasing pressure on Russia to engage more seriously in diplomacy. That’s precisely why the Pentagon’s decision to halt aid is so surprising — and damaging.

Trump appeared to have geopolitical momentum on his side. His bold military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, an action many believed he would never take, restored a sense of American credibility abroad, especially after what many saw as the Biden administration’s appeasement of Tehran. Then, at the NATO summit in The Hague, Trump had a major win. He convinced European allies to commit to significantly increased defense spending, including a landmark pledge to reach 5 percent of GDP by 2035 — spending levels not seen even during the Cold War.

At that same summit, a Ukrainian journalist asked Trump about the urgent need for air defense systems to protect civilians from Russian missile attacks. The president responded with genuine emotion. He said he would return to Washington and explore the possibility of sending more Patriot missile interceptors to Ukraine. Days later, however, his own Department of Defense contradicted both his words and apparent intent.

There is no doubt Trump has been sincere in his desire to bring the two sides to the table.

Luke Coffey

This is not the first time the Pentagon has acted out of sync with the president. In February, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered a temporary halt to military assistance to Ukraine without coordinating with the White House. That pause lasted only a few days, but it rattled allies and partners across Europe and sent shockwaves through Kyiv. At the time, the White House quietly aired its frustration. Now, it appears the Pentagon may be repeating the same mistake.

This latest move underscores a deeper problem: an ideological struggle within the Trump administration over US foreign policy. On one side are the isolationists who believe America should retreat from global commitments and focus exclusively on domestic concerns. They see little value in supporting Ukraine or NATO, or even maintaining a robust defense budget, since their vision of America’s role in the world is minimal at best.

Opposing them are the so-called prioritizers, who believe the US should focus nearly all of its strategic energy and resources on Asia, and particularly on countering the growing threat from China. In this view, America must prepare for a potential conflict over Taiwan, even if doing so means deprioritizing Europe or the Middle East. Every dollar spent and every missile deployed must serve the Indo-Pacific theater first. Both factions, for different reasons, see Ukraine as a distraction, so when aid is withheld, both are satisfied.

As long as this internal tug-of-war continues, behind closed doors and in public, the president will struggle to implement a coherent and effective foreign policy. Trump may be most comfortable dealing with issues such as trade, the economy, and border security, but the reality is that global leadership also requires strategic clarity on defense and diplomacy. To succeed, he needs a team aligned with his vision — not one that undermines it.

Now is the time for Trump to reassert control and redouble efforts to end Russia’s war in a way that promotes lasting European stability and delivers a fair, just outcome for Ukraine. Achieving this will probably be one of the most difficult foreign policy challenges of his presidency. But he cannot meet that challenge with a divided administration. He needs a unified front — particularly from his Department of Defense.

The sooner Trump reverses the Pentagon’s decision to halt military aid to Ukraine, the better the prospects for peace. Time is of the essence, and any further delay could cost lives — and squander the strategic gains he has worked hard to achieve.

• Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. X: @LukeDCoffey.