This is part of a series of regular assessments of the efforts, spearheaded by the Trump administration, to achieve a negotiated end to Russia’s war on Ukraine. Read the previous edition here.
When it comes to last week’s biggest story concerning Russia’s war on Ukraine, the facts are clear: The Trump administration decided to “pause” the delivery of military equipment to Ukraine that Congress approved in the spring of 2024. But the meaning of these developments is less clear. A closer look at what did—and didn’t—happen provides important insight as to how the Trump administration’s policy toward Russian aggression in Ukraine may develop in the coming months.
The list of halted weapons reportedly included interceptors for Patriot air defense systems, precision artillery rounds, and missiles that the Ukrainian air force fires from American-made F-16 jets. On July 1, Politico reported that US Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby drove the decision, which was made after a review of diminishing Pentagon arms stockpiles.
This appeared to be a significant movement of administration policy, taking it in a much different direction from where it had been just a week earlier. At the June 24-25 NATO Summit in The Hague, the United States joined the allies in decisions to greatly increase defense and defense-related expenditures to 5 percent of gross domestic product in ten years to meet the Russian threat. The allies also allowed defense aid to Ukraine to count as part of these expenditures. What’s more, at a press conference in The Hague, US President Donald Trump expressed his intention to help Ukraine obtain more air defense systems, including Patriot batteries and interceptor missiles
By the end of last week, however, a more nuanced interpretation emerged: that this initiative by the Pentagon was uncoordinated with the US State Department and even the White House; that, according to a study done by the Pentagon’s Joint Staff, providing the paused supplies to Ukraine would not jeopardize the readiness of the US armed forces if delivered; and that as far as Trump was concerned, arms transfers to Ukraine were uninterrupted.
This shifting understanding suggests a need to look step-by-step at the sequence of events to better understand how the Trump administration works.
Mixed signals
While the pause was first reported in the major media on July 1, it started no later than June 30. When first contacted about this on July 1, the White House had no response. Later that day, after checking with the Pentagon, White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly said, “This decision was made to put America’s interests first following a [Department of Defense] review of our nation’s military support and assistance to other countries across the globe.”
It is noteworthy that Trump made no statement at that time. But Russian President Vladimir Putin’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov did, welcoming it as step toward ending the war, which the Kremlin insists will require an end to Western arms shipments to Ukraine.
Trump’s silence lasted two days. After his hour-long phone call with Putin on the morning of July 3, the US president expressed his disappointment. “I didn’t make any progress with him at all,” Trump said of Putin. Later that day, Trump finally spoke about weapons for Ukraine. When a reporter asked why the United States had paused them, Trump responded that “we haven’t. We’re giving weapons.”
The next day, July 4, Trump spoke on the phone with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The preceding night, just hours after Trump called Putin, Moscow launched the largest aerial attack on Ukraine since the war began. It would have been nearly impossible for the administration not to notice this coincidence. Trump described the phone conversation as “a very good call” and “a very strategic call.” Trump added that the United States would “continue to help them [Ukraine].” Regarding the United States selling more Patriot missiles to Ukraine, Trump said, “Yeah, we might. We’re looking at it.”
Zelenskyy’s take on the call was also positive. On X he wrote that he and Trump “agreed that we will work together to strengthen protection of our skies.” Sources also reported to Axios that “Trump was aware of the recent Russia escalation,” and that he wanted “to help with air defense” and would “check what was put on hold if anything.”
Putting this all together, a clearer picture emerges. The decision to halt aid was initiated by Trump’s Pentagon, which at least once before, in early March, blocked military supplies to Ukraine. The deputy press secretary was the only official in the White House defending the pause. Trump said the US supply of weapons to Ukraine continues, and he expressed no knowledge of a pause. At the same time, Republican Representatives Don Bacon, Brian Fitzpatrick, and Michael McCaul, along with Democratic Representatives Marcy Kaptur and Adam Smith, are calling for an investigation to how this all happened.
Restrainer reckoning
It may be no coincidence that Trump’s silence on the controversy provoked by the supply pause ended after his July 3 call with Putin. The Russian dictator’s hard-line stance—just like his provocative statements before the NATO Summit in The Hague—stiffened Trump’s resolve in dealing with Russian aggression. So, he distanced himself from the pause, and he talked with Zelenskyy about providing more help with air defense. True realists have noted for some time that Putin’s uncompromising instincts could prove to be an important factor in encouraging Trump to adopt the necessary firm policy to deal with an aggressive Kremlin.
Bottom line: The fuss surrounding the decision and the reluctance of Trump or any cabinet official to defend it suggest that this pause, if not already lifted, will soon end. But let’s wait for public confirmation.
Even if the pause was approved at no higher level than the under secretary of defense for policy or even the secretary of defense, it is a reminder that administration policy on Russia and Ukraine is put together with the input of people with vastly different worldviews. The so-called “restrainers” in and around Trump world—such as media figures Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon, as well as perhaps Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in the administration—ran into some flak for not supporting Trump’s successful strike on Iran.
The impulse not to antagonize Russia is greater in the administration than the instinct not to oppose Iran forcefully. This incident is one more example of that impulse. Yet another example is apparent in the efforts of Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, who has been unable to persuade Putin to accept the Trump cease-fire proposals that Zelenskyy has, which could lift US sanctions on Russia’s energy sector.
Next, look to see how the administration moves on future weapons sales to Ukraine. In the call with Zelenskyy, Trump once again acknowledged the brutal pounding that Putin is inflicting on Ukraine with his enhanced bombing. It is now time for the United States to sell Ukraine more air defense and other weapons that would underscore for Putin that he will fail in his efforts to take more Ukrainian land.
Another question about the administration’s intention is whether the White House will finally flash a green (or at least yellow) light to enable US Senator Lindsey Graham’s sanctions bill on Russia and its enablers to move forward in the Senate.
In short, the efforts by the “restrainers” in the administration to pause arms to Ukraine failed. But they are still in the game.
John E. Herbst is the senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center and a former US ambassador to Ukraine.
Further reading
Thu, Jul 3, 2025
Finnish President Alexander Stubb on why The Hague summit marks ‘the birth of new NATO’
New Atlanticist By Katherine Golden
There is significant “burden shifting” underway in NATO, which is “a good thing for Europe and for the Alliance right now,” Stubb said at an Atlantic Council Front Page event.
Thu, Jul 3, 2025
Does the Trump administration have a coherent policy to establish a stable peace in Ukraine?
New Atlanticist By John E. Herbst
Withholding planned military aid to Kyiv is a serious mistake that undercuts the Trump administration’s efforts to make peace in Ukraine.
Wed, Jul 2, 2025
Russia applauds US decision to halt key weapons deliveries to Ukraine
UkraineAlert By Peter Dickinson
The Kremlin has cheered this week's US decision to halt the delivery of crucial defensive weapons to Ukraine as Russia continues to pursue its maximalist goal of extinguishing Ukrainian statehood, writes Peter Dickinson.
Image: Servicemen of the 127th Separate Brigade of the Territorial Defence Forces of the Ukrainian Armed Forces fire a Howitzer towards Russian troops on a front line, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, in Kharkiv region, Ukraine June 2, 2025. Anatolii Lysianskyi/Press Service of the 127th Separate Brigade of the Territorial Defence Forces of the Ukrainian Armed Forces/Handout via REUTERS