Trump’s Ukraine Policy: A Continuation of Biden’s Approach, Despite Anti-War Rhetoric

When Donald Trump campaigned for his second term, he promised a dramatic shift in U.S. foreign policy, vowing to end conflicts and prioritize "America First." Central to his platform was a commitment to de-escalate the Russia-Ukraine war, often claiming he could broker peace in a single day.

However, as of July 15, 2025, Trump’s actions reveal a policy strikingly similar to that of his predecessor, Joe Biden, despite his public frustrations with Russian President Vladimir Putin. By continuing to supply armaments to Ukraine, twisting the narrative to suggest the U.S. is profiting, and authorizing deep strikes into Russia, Trump is fueling what critics argue is an unconstitutional proxy war.

This approach raises questions about the War Powers Act, the role of Congress, and persistent allegations of money laundering tied to Western aid. Meanwhile, Putin’s control over eastern Ukraine and access to the Black Sea gives him little incentive to back down.

Trump’s Frustration with Putin and Policy Continuity

Recent reports indicate that Trump has grown increasingly frustrated with Putin, particularly after repeated failures to secure a ceasefire. In a July 4, 2025, call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump expressed dismay over Russian airstrikes following what he described as "very pleasant" phone conversations with Putin. “I felt we had a deal about four times,” Trump said, lamenting that Russian attacks continued unabated.

This frustration culminated in a significant policy announcement on July 14, 2025, during a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. Trump revealed a plan to funnel U.S.-made weapons to Ukraine through NATO allies, who would purchase the arms and transfer them to Kyiv. He framed this as a financial win for the U.S., stating, “We’re going to make top-of-the-line weapons, and they’ll be sent to NATO... The United States will NOT be having any payment made.”

This arrangement, however, closely resembles Biden-era policies. The U.S. has provided approximately $74 billion in military aid to Ukraine since Russia’s 2022 invasion, with much of it drawn from Pentagon stockpiles under the Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA). Trump’s plan to have European nations fund the weapons mirrors Biden’s reliance on allied contributions, with the EU collectively providing $157 billion in total aid, including $73 billion in military support.

By presenting this as a new, profit-driven strategy, Trump obscures the continuity of U.S. involvement in the conflict, which critics argue lacks congressional authorization and violates the War Powers Act.

Authorization of Deep Strikes and Escalation

A significant escalation in Trump’s policy came during his July 4 call with Zelenskyy, where he reportedly authorized Ukraine to conduct deep strikes into Russian territory, though he explicitly cautioned against targeting Moscow or non-military sites. This mirrors Biden’s approach, which allowed Ukraine to use U.S.-provided weapons for limited strikes inside Russia, particularly in response to Russian advances.

Trump’s rhetoric, however, has taken a more provocative tone. In a July 2025 interview, he mused about whether the U.S. should strike Moscow to “make Putin feel pain,” a statement that alarmed analysts for its potential to escalate the conflict into a direct U.S.-Russia confrontation. While no such action has been taken, this rhetoric underscores a departure from Trump’s campaign promise of de-escalation.

The authorization of deep strikes, combined with continued arms shipments, places Ukraine in a position to intensify its military operations. However, without a formal declaration of war or explicit congressional approval, these actions raise legal concerns.

The War Powers Act of 1973 requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to hostilities and to withdraw forces within 60 days unless Congress authorizes continued involvement. Critics argue that the U.S.’s role in supplying weapons and enabling strikes constitutes participation in hostilities, bypassing congressional oversight. This lack of authorization echoes controversies from Biden’s tenure, particularly the 2019 Trump-Ukraine scandal, where Trump withheld $400 million in congressionally mandated aid to pressure Zelenskyy for political favors.

The Establishment Agenda and Money Laundering Allegations

Trump’s alignment with Biden’s Ukraine policy has led to accusations that he is perpetuating an establishment-driven agenda, despite his anti-war rhetoric. The continued flow of billions in aid, much of it funneled through complex international arrangements, has reignited concerns about money laundering. Western taxpayer funds, intended for Ukraine’s defense, have long been scrutinized for potential misuse.

Reports from 2022-2024 highlighted instances of aid being diverted through shell companies or unaccounted for in Ukraine’s opaque financial systems. The Treasury Department’s recent decision to suspend a Biden-era rule aimed at curbing money laundering through shell companies has only fueled these concerns. While no direct evidence ties Trump’s current policy to money laundering, the lack of transparency in aid distribution and the involvement of multiple intermediaries—now including NATO allies purchasing U.S. weapons—creates fertile ground for speculation.

Critics argue that this continuity reflects the influence of a bipartisan foreign policy establishment that prioritizes countering Russia over domestic concerns. Trump’s initial suspension of military aid in March 2025, followed by its resumption under pressure from European allies, suggests he faced resistance from within this establishment. His pivot to selling weapons through NATO allies may be an attempt to appease both his base, by claiming financial benefits, and the establishment, by maintaining support for Ukraine.

Putin’s Leverage and the Black Sea Connection

Russia’s control over eastern Ukraine, particularly regions connecting to the Black Sea, gives Putin significant leverage in negotiations. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 and subsequent gains in Donetsk and Luhansk have secured Russia’s access to critical maritime routes and resources.

Putin has shown little incentive to withdraw, especially as Trump’s policies mirror Biden’s, offering no new pressure to force concessions. The Black Sea ceasefire, agreed upon in May 2025 to ensure safe navigation, has not deterred Russian aggression elsewhere, with Moscow launching nearly 400 drones and missiles against Kyiv in a single night in July 2025.

Putin’s strategy appears to be one of attrition, banking on outlasting Western support. The Institute for the Study of War noted that pauses in U.S. aid, such as Trump’s brief freeze in March 2025, reinforce Putin’s belief that time is on Russia’s side. With eastern Ukraine under Russian control and no significant shift in U.S. policy, Putin faces little pressure to negotiate in good faith, despite Trump’s threats of sanctions and tariffs.