President Donald Trump is receiving accolades from his core supporters over his recent decision to withhold certain weapons from Ukraine, as concerns about his commitment to keeping the United States out of international conflicts surface among his followers.
This announcement, which entails a suspension of deliveries of key air defense missiles and precision-guided artillery to Ukraine, follows Trump’s orders for U.S. military strikes against Iranian nuclear sites.
These actions have caused some fervent proponents of the ‘Make America Great Again’ movement to question Trump’s dedication to his pledge of avoiding ‘stupid wars’ as he engages the U.S. military in Israel’s ongoing conflict with Iran.
By halting the flow of armaments to Ukraine, particularly Patriot missiles that are critical for defense, Trump is signaling to his most enthusiastic backers that he remains committed to his campaign promise of reducing American involvement in Ukraine’s battle against Russia—a conflict he frequently labels as a costly distraction for U.S. taxpayers.
Dan Caldwell, a former senior adviser at the Pentagon, expressed on social media that Trump had to make a choice between equipping American troops with much-needed munitions and sending them to a country where U.S. interests are not directly at stake.
Caldwell had previously voiced concerns prior to the Iranian strikes that U.S. military involvement could escalate into a broader conflict with catastrophic consequences for American lives.
Far-right commentator Jack Posobiec, who is an enthusiastic supporter of Trump’s agenda, celebrated the strategic pause in military assistance to Ukraine, emphasizing the theme of ‘America FIRST’ in his statements on social media.
Trump spoke publicly about the decision for the first time recently, arguing it was essential, given Biden’s previous military support that he claims ’emptied out our whole country’ of necessary weaponry.
He mentioned, ‘We’ve given so many weapons,’ emphasizing the need for the U.S. to ensure it has sufficient resources for its own needs while still providing assistance to Ukraine as best as possible.
Simultaneously, officials from the White House and Pentagon have claimed that this decision aligns with Trump’s commitment to an ‘America First’ policy that prioritizes national interests.
Pentagon chief spokesman Sean Parnell reinforced this notion by stating the president’s election was based on the platform that puts America’s needs at the forefront.
However, the decision to pause arms shipments has alarmed some members of the more hawkish faction within the Republican Party, who see the halt to U.S. military aid as misguided, especially as Russia intensifies its attacks on Ukraine.
Representative Brian Fitzpatrick, a Republican from Pennsylvania, expressed his serious concerns in a letter to Trump and the Pentagon, calling for an emergency briefing on the matter.
He articulated, ‘We can’t let Vladimir Putin prevail now. President Trump knows that too and it’s why he’s been advocating for peace.’
Another Republican congressman, Michael McCaul from Texas, insisted that it’s critical to show Putin that the U.S. is committed to supporting Ukraine with the necessary military equipment as authorized by Congress, arguing this could pressure Russia into negotiations.
On Thursday, Trump held a phone conversation with Putin, marking the sixth dialogue between the two leaders since his reinstatement in office. They discussed various topics, including Iran and Ukraine but did not specifically touch on the suspension of U.S. weapons shipments.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, during a visit to Denmark where he met with key EU allies, expressed his hopes of discussing the pause with Trump soon.
The administration framed the pause as part of a thorough review of U.S. military stockpiles following an estimated $70 billion in military assistance to Ukraine since the start of the conflict in February 2022.
This decision was orchestrated by Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon’s policy chief, who has openly advocated for a shift in U.S. strategic focus towards challenges presented by China, regarded as America’s primary economic and military competitor.
At his Senate confirmation hearing, Colby noted that the U.S. military lacks the capability to fight multiple wars simultaneously.
Retired Navy Admiral Mark Montgomery, a military analyst, described this moment as one where those advocating for a restrained foreign policy are asserting their influence, signaling a priority shift toward the Pacific region.
Proponents of a more cautious U.S. foreign policy contend that the current scenario in Ukraine, combined with volatile situations in the Middle East and the growing threats in Asia, necessitates careful management of U.S. defense resources.
Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior fellow at Defense Priorities, remarked that the commitment to sustain military support for Ukraine could jeopardize the United States’ readiness to respond to future crises, underlining the unpredictability of such situations.
She stressed that a degree of caution is advisable, suggesting that while supporting Ukraine is crucial, it must not come at the expense of U.S. military effectiveness in other areas of significance.
image source from：apnews
