Columns 
Chris McGrath/Getty Images
Originally published on The Ukrainian Weekly
For the past year, Ukrainians have shown consistency in working toward a peaceful outcome to the war, but not at the cost of surrender. Moscow, too, has consistently demonstrated that it is not interested in a peaceful settlement and is determined to pursue its imperial ambitions. Only U.S. President Donald Trump has been inconsistent – pivoting back and forth between Russia and Ukraine, albeit tilting excessively in the direction of Moscow. Unfortunately, the U.S. president has all too often accepted war criminal Putin’s lies at face value and given him the benefit of the doubt. If there is to be a chance at real peace, it is time for Congress to step in and show resolve.
Over the course of the last year, there have been enough zigs and zags in the Trump administration’s approach toward Ukraine to give one a severe case of whiplash.
A recent fascinating, but deeply disconcerting investigative report by The New York Times chronicles the battles throughout the last year within the Trump administration, especially the Pentagon, regarding Ukraine policy – if one can even call it a policy. At the top of this dysfunctional pyramid is Mr. Trump, with his erratic, unpredictable personality, inability to dive deep into complex issues, transactional approach, and lack of a moral compass. Mr. Trump’s all-too-frequent moral equivalence between Russia, the savage aggressor, and Ukraine, the innocent victim, has been abominable. Some argue that Mr. Trump does this for tactical reasons; I’m not so sure.
Even if one were to take a more benevolent view that Mr. Trump genuinely wants to stop the killing, his deference to Putin hasn’t served that purpose. Sadly, the administration’s approach has cost more – not fewer – lives, and not only military lives but those of innocent civilians, including children.
Putin has repeatedly refused ceasefire proposals, beginning last March, which, if accepted and implemented, would have at least temporarily halted the killing or reduced the level of violence. The Kremlin dictator’s continuing hard line – basically saying “nyet” to every U.S.-brokered peace plan – and Mr. Trump’s unwillingness or inability to apply more pressure on Moscow only prolongs the death and suffering. We see it daily with Russia’s barbaric strikes on civilians and its relentless attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, resulting in massive blackouts as Ukrainians suffer without heat and power in sub-freezing temperatures.
One can only admire President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his team for their tireless diplomatic efforts to keep the Trump administration as allies, especially following an inauspicious start with the February 28, 2025, White House meeting between Messrs. Trump and Zelenskyy. The Ukrainian president and his team have been patient and smart. They have also continually engaged European leaders.
European solidarity with Ukraine has been crucial, not only with its growing commitment to Ukraine’s security, but also in keeping Mr. Trump from completely going off the rails when he sides with Putin. There appears to be a step in the right direction as the U.S. has backed a European plan that advances security guarantees for Ukraine, including sending troops in the event of a ceasefire. But, notwithstanding Moscow’s perfectly predictable rejection of such a European peacekeeping force, there is another question: Can the Trump administration even be trusted to implement security guarantees, given its largely discouraging track record on Ukraine? Then there is the matter of the U.S. administration’s transactional and selective approach in foreign affairs in general, most recently exhibited by the military operation in Venezuela and the intent to control Greenland.
Unfortunately, Congress, where Ukraine has historically enjoyed considerable bipartisan support, has been largely missing in action. This is even though substantial majorities in both the Senate and House continue to back Ukraine’s fight for its sovereignty and freedom. And members of Congress understand that the obstacles to peace lie with the Kremlin. (Truth to tell, I find this current lack of Congressional resolve deeply dismaying, having both worked at the bipartisan, bicameral Helsinki Commission on Ukraine for more than 35 years and having written about the history of Congressional support for Ukraine).
There is one main reason for this excessive Republican Congressional caution: Donald Trump. If the president were to give the green light and, say, ask Congress for a supplemental appropriation for Ukraine, then I’m confident that Congress would pass it. Let’s remember that during the presidency of Joe Biden, there were five separate overwhelmingly bipartisan successful votes that appropriated a total of an astounding $174 billion for Ukraine. Yes, sure, there would be kicking and screaming from some fiscal conservatives and MAGA isolationists (some still exist even though Mr. Trump has proved himself lately to be anything but isolationist).
Of course, with Europe picking up the slack and taking on more of the burden for both military and especially financial aid, which the U.S. has shamefully completely stopped, one would not need the huge funding sums appropriated earlier. But America still has an enormous stake in a successful outcome for Ukraine, and Congress should back this up by appropriating adequate funding for the war-ravaged country.
The only major legislation in the entire year of 2025 that was pro-Ukraine was the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It at least authorizes a modest amount of military aid to Ukraine, provides more oversight of the administration’s arms sales and intelligence support for Kyiv, and supports efforts to return and rehabilitate Ukrainian children abducted by Russia. These provisions are important and welcome, but, frankly, legislatively this does not compare to what Congress was able to do in 2022, 2023, and 2024 to massively assist Ukraine.
Mr. Trump has supposedly finally greenlit a vote for the bipartisan Sanctioning Russia Act (S. 1241) sponsored by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), which has been languishing for more than nine months despite its almost unheard of 85 cosponsors. When I was at the Helsinki Commission, my colleagues and I were absolutely thrilled when legislation we had worked on, including on Ukraine, received far fewer cosponsors – even 20 or 30 cosponsors from both parties was considered a lot. And I suspect that, even if the current bill were to be amended, it would still garner substantial backing and easily pass.
Given Putin’s intransigence, including his rejection of six ceasefire initiatives since last March, the Senate should have acted sooner. It should now pass the act without delay. The Senate should also act promptly on the bipartisan REPO Implementation Act (S. 2918), which was introduced by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) last September. This bill, among other things, encourages the president to disburse at least $250 million from seized Russian funds every 90 days to ensure a steady flow of support for Ukraine.
On the House side, the ever-Trump-deferential Speaker Mike Johnson has done virtually nothing on Ukraine. Let’s not forget that it was Mr. Johnson who held up the $61 billion Ukraine supplemental appropriations bill in 2024 until Mr. Trump approved it. And this was only after massive pressure, not only from pro-Ukraine Congressional Republicans, Democrats and American citizen advocates, but also from European governments and Ukrainian non-governmental organizations, to bring Mr. Johnson around to seek Mr. Trump’s blessing.
Last month, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), co-chair of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus, and Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) led a broad bipartisan coalition of House members to introduce the Peace Through Strength Against Russia Act of 2025 (H.R 2548). This legislation is similar in some respects, but tougher and more comprehensive than the Senate sanctions bill. I’m confident that if a vote is taken, the bill will pass by a substantial margin.
The House needs to unequivocally demonstrate that it is serious about applying pressure on Russia to engage in meaningful peace negotiations. And while there is a stronger proposed measure in the House, because it is only supported by Democrats, the bipartisan Fitzpatrick-Meeks bill has a greater chance for passage in the Republican-controlled Congress.
In a speech on the House floor last month, former House Majority Leader and Helsinki Commission chairman from 1985 to 1995, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who is also one of the principal cosponsors of the Fitzpatrick-Meeks bill, argued that the entire free world is at risk if Putin is allowed to prevail. Mr. Hoyer, a long-time champion of Ukraine, raised the question: “Will America and this Congress allow it [Ukraine] to become a nation betrayed?” The answer must be a resounding no. Congress has a strong record of bipartisan support for Ukraine stretching back well before independence. Let’s quit making excuses and get it done, Congress! Failure is not an option.