The Trump administration is increasingly signaling its intent to reduce aid to Ukraine. In testimony before Congress last week, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth confirmed that the 2026 budget includes cuts to funding for weapons purchases on behalf of Ukraine. Just days earlier, Secretary Hegseth skipped the Ukraine Defense Contact Group meeting in Brussels—the first time a U.S. defense secretary has done so since Russia’s full-scale invasion began. In March, after a contentious Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the Trump administration paused all military aid to Ukraine for more than a week, including arms shipments and intelligence support. And no new aid packages for Ukraine have been approved since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term, while some promised systems have been diverted elsewhere.
The message from the administration is clear: Far from guaranteed, future U.S. support for Ukraine may be in jeopardy.
The administration’s stated logic for a reduced role is that Europe, given its proximity and stake in the conflict, should shoulder more of the burden supporting Ukraine’s fight. In his testimony this week, Hegseth also argued that continued U.S. support for Ukraine comes at the expense of other priorities, including competition with China.
President Trump also appears to have personal ambitions to be the man who ends the war in Ukraine by brokering a peace deal.
But President Trump’s chance at the negotiating table may never materialize if U.S. support collapses first. Cutting U.S. aid to Ukraine now would not hasten peace. It would encourage the Kremlin to believe what it has long hoped for—that U.S. resolve is fleeting, and that time is on Russia’s side.
Ukraine’s battlefield resilience depends heavily on continued U.S. assistance. U.S.-supplied air defense systems are protecting Ukrainian cities, critical infrastructure, and soldiers on the front lines. U.S. long-range strike capabilities allow Ukrainian forces to hit Russian command centers and logistical nodes deep behind enemy lines. Ammunition stockpiles and precision munitions delivered through U.S. aid help Ukraine repel Russian assaults along an extended front. And U.S. intelligence has been vital to enabling Ukraine’s precision strike capabilities and defense against Russia’s air campaign.
With U.S. support, Ukraine is successfully preventing a Russian breakthrough. Since January 2024, Russia has captured less than 1 percent of Ukrainian territory while suffering staggering losses in troops and equipment. These are not the results of a military machine on the verge of victory. They represent the inefficiency and attrition of a large force being held back by a determined and desperate defense—one still made possible by U.S. aid.
To be sure, Ukraine and its supporters in Europe are aware of the risk of wavering U.S. support and are ramping up their efforts to increase defense production. Several European states have increased defense spending, committed to long-term military assistance for Ukraine, and taken steps to boost ammunition production. But these efforts will take time and cannot completely fill the gap left by the potential loss of U.S. support.
A weakened Ukraine with fewer defenses and less ammunition will not give the United States greater leverage to bring Vladimir Putin to the table. On the contrary, Putin has less incentive to negotiate if he believes that U.S. disengagement is inevitable and that Russia will soon gain an advantage on the battlefield. Ultimately, continuing U.S. aid to Ukraine is useful regardless of whether the goal is to enable Ukraine to retake lost territory or a diplomatic settlement along the current frontlines.
Riley McCabe is an associate fellow for the Warfare, Irregular Threats, and Terrorism Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
