Chaos still reigns in Washington: the defence secretary made a major geopolitical move on Ukraine without even consulting the president. How did this happen—and what’s derailing the long-awaited Russia sanctions bill?
(Un)controlled chaos
After the sudden—and, let’s be frank, just as unexpected—pause in U.S. arms shipments to Ukraine was abruptly reversed, a troubling question lingered among Americans: does the Pentagon truly make critical geopolitical decisions without clearing them with the White House? How could it be that President Trump was kept in the dark about moves by his own Department of Defense, especially when they carried such weight in a strategically crucial area of U.S. foreign policy?
So who was behind this significant decision made without the president’s knowledge? CNN points to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth: “Secretary of Defense did not inform the White House before he authorised a pause on weapons shipments to Ukraine last week, according to five sources familiar with the matter, setting off a scramble inside the administration to understand why the halt was implemented and explain it to Congress and the Ukrainian government. President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that he was not responsible for the move.”
CNN notes just how chaotic decision-making has become under this administration—especially at the Pentagon, where the boss has already made waves by reportedly chatting about possible strikes on Yemen over the encrypted messaging app Signal.
And let’s not forget, back in March, Hegseth also paused aid to Ukraine, catching a lot of national security officials in Washington completely off guard.
However, this time, not all the blame falls on Hegseth. According to the Associated Press, the real driving force behind the decision was his deputy, Elbridge Colby, who has long been known for his sceptical stance toward Kyiv.
The Associated Press reports: “Two anonymous sources said that some Pentagon officials opposed the pause in assistance even before it was formally announced. The process was coordinated by Deputy Secretary for Policy Elbridge Colby. One of the sources noted that the decision came as a surprise to Trump, although the White House has not commented on it.”
Politico tells a similar story about Colby, noting this was not the first time the deputy secretary had unilaterally made decisions that left both his colleagues in the administration and foreign partners puzzled and confused.
One earlier example involved an order to reconsider the terms of AUKUS—the trilateral defence pact between the U.S., Australia, and the U.K. concerning the development and deployment of nuclear-powered submarines. “Colby annoys everyone I know in the administration. Everyone knows he wants to reduce the U.S. role on the international stage,” a source told Politico.
Of course, each publication relies solely on anonymous sources, offering no direct proof that Trump was kept in the dark. Yet, in the case of Ukraine, we have the president’s own words, clearly stating he knew nothing. The AUKUS episode is even more peculiar, given that Hegseth had previously assured everyone that “the president is aware of AUKUS, supports the initiative, and understands its importance for our defence-industrial base.”
That said, internal debate over a given issue is generally a healthy feature of national governance.
Within the Trump administration, there are clearly both supporters of continued aid to Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression, and opponents who raise concerns about the depletion of U.S. weapons stockpiles. Under normal circumstances, the president would be expected to hear all sides and make a measured decision that best serves the national interest.
Instead, we are witnessing episodes like those involving Colby, which serve only to embarrass Trump on the global stage. A recent example is the conduct of National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard, who was dissatisfied with Trump’s decision to strike Iran. Rather than resign or suppress her frustration and act in accordance with her leadership, she did something unprecedented for a top intelligence official: she recorded a video claiming that her own government’s actions had brought the world to the brink of nuclear catastrophe.
As we’ve noted more than once, Trump can be seen as a ‘villain’ playing the traditional American game of realpolitik, but it’s difficult to accuse him of ideological sympathy toward the Russians. This is especially clear now, as the president is finally starting to recognise Moscow’s unwillingness to pursue any form of peaceful resolution.
Yet, after nearly six months of Trump in Washington, it’s becoming apparent that discipline is not a strong suit of his administration. Unlike his first term, when he reshuffled his cabinet without hesitation, this time he’s taking his time. Take the “Signal” scandal, for example — loud and embarrassing enough to justify the dismissal of several senior officials, starting with Hegseth himself. In the end, though, it amounted to little more than a quietly awkward reassignment of National Security Advisor Mike Waltz to the vacant post of U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
For us, this signals that fundamentally nothing has changed: active engagement with Trump and his inner circle remains essential. Increasingly, the focus must shift to that circle, which is playing a more independent role. Of course, the president’s authority remains unquestioned for now, and the final word will always be his. But we are seeing that his attention is drawn to people who may hold sharply different views on Ukraine’s future. We need as many of those people on our side as possible.
A 500% tariff on the EU and other allies?
One can only hope that one of the people in Trump’s circle is Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. He has long championed legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia, with the centerpiece being a 500% tariff on countries that “knowingly sell, supply, transport or purchase oil, uranium, natural gas, or petroleum products originating from the Russian Federation.”
On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune expressed optimism that the bill would soon come before the Senate: “You’ll hear more by the end of the week. We’re interested in advancing Senator Graham’s legislation.”
But at this stage, it remains entirely unclear how—and against whom—that proposed 500% tariff would be enforced. First, a tariff at that level would amount to a de facto embargo, effectively halting any trade between the United States and the targeted nations. Second, has everyone forgotten who still trades these goods with Russia? Major U.S. partners and allies: the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and others. Even the Americans themselves continue to purchase Russian uranium under long-term contracts. Does that mean tariffs would have to be imposed against themselves?
This all feels like Graham’s bid to squeeze the Russians using tactics that hit home with Trump’s playbook. Naturally, when faced with the choice between trading with Russia or the U.S., most countries would side with the Americans.
Maybe it’s the looming threat of these sanctions that’s already pushing many nations to steer clear of Russian energy.
Yet a more likely outcome seems to be the onset of a new phase in the U.S. trade war with the rest of the world. While everyone is still grappling with the fallout from Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day,” the prospect of fresh tariffs is hardly going to help deliver on the president’s promise of “90 deals in 90 days.” In fact, those 90 days have already elapsed, and during that time the U.S. has secured just two framework agreements—one with the U.K. and another with Vietnam.
One way or another, we sincerely hope the United States will continue to hit the Russian economy, which is now facing truly difficult times. But proposals like Graham’s reveal a rush and a lack of careful planning. Ideally, the Americans should coordinate sanctions with the Europeans and other partners, just as they did at the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion.
Ukrainian diplomats face no easy task. Initially, they dealt with the Biden administration, which promised much but delivered little. Now, they must navigate the unpredictability, lack of discipline, and at times even carelessness of the Trump administration. Still, there is no other choice: we must once again achieve results under seemingly impossible conditions. And isn’t that precisely the core strength of Ukrainians?
