As the transition of power in Washington looms, the Biden Administration is set to leave President-elect Donald Trump with an unresolved question of foreign policy: what to do with the billions of dollars in unspent Ukraine aid. The Pentagon recently confirmed that several billion dollars remain in the Presidential Drawdown Authority fund, a key mechanism through which the USA has been sending military assistance to Ukraine amid its ongoing conflict with Russia.
Since the escalation of hostilities between Ukraine and Russia in February 2022, the USA has allocated an estimated $122 billion in military, financial, and humanitarian aid to Kiev. This aid has been drawn primarily from two sources: direct congressional appropriations and the Presidential Drawdown Authority, a unique fund enabling the rapid transfer of arms and ammunition from US stockpiles to Ukraine. While the Biden Administration has made use of this authority 72 times, the fund is not yet fully depleted. According to Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh, this leaves “a few billion dollars” for the incoming Trump Administration to manage.
The unspent funds have sparked speculation about how Trump’s administration will approach the conflict in Ukraine. Reports suggest the remaining amount under the Presidential Drawdown Authority is around $4.8 billion. This surplus reflects the Pentagon’s logistical struggles to replenish US weapon stockpiles rapidly after shipments to Ukraine. According to Singh, “We were not able to resupply our own stocks fast enough,” creating a bottleneck that leaves Trump with a consequential decision to make.
Trump has been vocal about his intent to end the Ukraine conflict swiftly. Though the president-elect has provided few details, his rhetoric points to a significant shift in US policy. Trump’s proposed approach includes direct meetings with both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, with the goal of brokering a negotiated settlement. This stands in stark contrast to the Biden Administration’s strategy of robust military support, which aims to help Ukraine regain its territorial integrity and maintain its sovereignty.
Trump’s team has hinted at using the remaining aid as a bargaining chip to push Ukraine toward the negotiating table. When asked in a recent interview with NBC News whether Ukraine should brace for reduced US aid under his administration, Trump responded, “Possibly. Yeah, probably, sure.” This signals a likely recalibration of US-Ukrainian relations, with aid serving as a tool to achieve a diplomatic solution rather than as a means of sustaining Kiev’s military resistance.
However, Trump’s critics argue that reducing aid could embolden Russia and weaken Ukraine’s position in negotiations. Moscow has repeatedly emphasized that it seeks a permanent resolution to the conflict, not a temporary ceasefire. Any freeze along current battle lines, they argue, could simply provide Ukraine with time to rearm and prepare for future hostilities, potentially prolonging the conflict rather than resolving it.
The Biden Administration’s legacy on Ukraine is one of robust support and steadfast commitment to countering Russian aggression. In contrast, Trump’s presidency could herald a new era of pragmatism, one that prioritizes diplomacy and negotiation over prolonged military engagement. The outcome of this policy shift remains uncertain, but one thing is clear: the world will be watching closely as Trump navigates the complex and high-stakes landscape of US-Ukraine-Russia relations.
The Biden Administration’s handling of the Ukraine conflict has been characterized by unwavering support for Kiev, with significant financial and military commitments. The most recent aid package, announced by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, includes $500 million worth of anti-air missiles, artillery shells, and air-to-ground missiles. This represents the final tranche of aid under Biden’s Presidential Drawdown Authority, marking the end of a chapter in US foreign policy.
For Biden, the unspent funds may reflect logistical challenges rather than a lack of political will. The Administration’s consistent use of the Drawdown Authority-72 times since the conflict’s escalation-demonstrates its commitment to bolstering Ukraine’s defence capabilities. Nonetheless, the transfer of billions of dollars in unused authority to Trump’s administration underscores the unfinished nature of Biden’s Ukraine policy and raises questions about the future trajectory of US involvement in the conflict.
The shift in US policy under Trump could have far-reaching implications for transatlantic relations. European allies, who have closely coordinated their Ukraine support with Washington, may view a reduction in US aid as a sign of waning commitment. This could complicate NATO’s united front against Russian aggression and strain alliances at a critical juncture.
On the other hand, some European leaders might welcome a de-escalation in US involvement if it leads to peace negotiations. The Biden Administration’s approach has placed considerable pressure on Europe to match Washington’s level of support, despite varying capacities and political will among member states. Trump’s willingness to reassess the aid strategy could force Europe to take on a more prominent role in shaping the conflict’s outcome.
Trump’s approach to Ukraine aid also reflects domestic political considerations. A significant portion of his base supports a more isolationist foreign policy, prioritizing US interests over foreign entanglements. By promising to end the Ukraine conflict swiftly and potentially reducing aid, Trump appeals to voters who are weary of extensive US involvement in overseas conflicts.
However, this strategy is not without risks. A perceived withdrawal of support for Ukraine could alienate key constituencies, including defence hawks and voters concerned about the implications of Russian aggression for global stability. Moreover, Trump’s critics could seize on any reduction in aid as evidence of a lack of commitment to US allies and values.
As Trump prepares to take office, the fate of the unspent Ukraine aid will serve as a litmus test for his administration’s foreign policy priorities. Whether he uses the remaining funds to leverage peace talks, maintain support for Ukraine, or pivot toward a different strategy altogether, the decision will have profound consequences for the conflict’s trajectory and US global standing.
The Biden Administration’s legacy on Ukraine is one of robust support and steadfast commitment to countering Russian aggression. In contrast, Trump’s presidency could herald a new era of pragmatism, one that prioritizes diplomacy and negotiation over prolonged military engagement. The outcome of this policy shift remains uncertain, but one thing is clear: the world will be watching closely as Trump navigates the complex and high-stakes landscape of US-Ukraine-Russia relations.
