The Daily Populous Saturday July 5th, 2025 morning edition
Authored by nbcnews.com and submitted by Matrim_WoT

The Defense Department held up a shipment of U.S. weapons for Ukraine this week over what officials said were concerns about its low stockpiles. But an analysis by senior military officers found that the aid package would not jeopardize the American military’s own ammunition supplies, according to three U.S. officials.

The move to halt the weapons shipment blindsided the State Department, members of Congress, officials in Kyiv and European allies, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the matter.

Critics of the decision included Republicans and Democrats who support aiding Ukraine’s fight against Russia. A leading House Democrat, Adam Smith of Washington, said it was disingenuous of the Pentagon to use military readiness to justify halting aid when the real reason appears to be simply to pursue an agenda of cutting off American aid to Ukraine.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth following a bilateral meeting with Netherlands' prime minister on the sidelines of the NATO summit in The Hague on June 25, 2025. Brendan Smialowski / AFP - Getty Images

“We are not at any lower point, stockpile-wise, than we’ve been in the 3½ years of the Ukraine conflict,” Smith, the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, told NBC News.

Smith said that his staff has “seen the numbers” and, without going into detail, that there was no indication of a shortage that would justify suspending aid to Ukraine.

Suspending the shipment of military aid to Ukraine was a unilateral step by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, according to three congressional aides and a former U.S. official familiar with the matter. It was the third time Hegseth on his own has stopped shipments of aid to Ukraine, the sources said. In the two previous cases, in February and in May, his actions were reversed days later.

A senior Pentagon official, Elbridge Colby, the undersecretary of defense for policy, has backed the moves, the sources said. Colby has long advocated scaling back the U.S. commitment in Ukraine and shifting weapons and resources to the Pacific region to counter China.

Lawmakers from both parties were frustrated that they were not notified in advance and were examining whether the delayed shipment violated legislation mandating security assistance for Ukraine, according to congressional aides. Those lawmakers and some European allies were trying to determine just why the Pentagon ordered the suspension and were scrambling to get it reversed.

The White House has defended the decision, saying it followed an ongoing review by the Defense Department of U.S. assistance to allies and partners abroad that began last month.

The review began after Hegseth issued a memo ordering the Pentagon’s Joint Staff to review stockpiles of all munitions. According to three officials familiar with the matter, the assessment found that some stockpiles of high-precision munitions were at lower levels but not yet beyond critical minimums.

The Joint Staff concluded that providing continued assistance to Ukraine would not drain U.S. supplies below a required threshold needed to ensure military readiness, the officials said.

The Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment Thursday.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell called the assessment a “capability review" at a briefing Wednesday.

“We can’t give weapons to everybody all around the world,” Parnell said. “Part of our job is to give the president a framework that he can use to evaluate how many munitions we have where we’re sending them. And that review process is happening right now and is ongoing.”

Ukraine has issued urgent appeals to Washington for more air defense systems as Russia has stepped up its bombardment of Ukrainian cities. Over the weekend, Russia launched its biggest aerial attack of the three-year-old conflict, firing 60 missiles and 477 drones across the country.

The delayed shipment included dozens of Patriot interceptors, coveted weapons for Ukraine to knock out incoming missiles, as well as 155 mm artillery rounds, Hellfire missiles, precision-guided missile systems known as GMLRS, grenade launchers, Stinger surface-to-air missiles and AIM air-to-air missiles for Ukraine’s small fleet of F-16 fighter jets.

In Poland and other European countries, some of the U.S. weapons had already been loaded onto trucks, ready to be delivered to Kyiv to help its government fend off Russian missile attacks and hold the line against ground forces in the country’s east. Then, military officers and officials handling the shipment got word that the delivery had been called off, said two sources with knowledge of the matter.

The weapons shipment was approved during the Biden administration, three U.S. officials said. Some of the weapons were pulled from U.S. stockpiles, with the Pentagon receiving funds to replenish them. Other munitions fall under a program that provides money to buy new weapons for Ukraine from American defense companies, the officials said. Those weapons are not drawn from U.S. supplies.

Since the United States began sending large shipments of weapons to Kyiv after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, U.S. officials and commanders have grown concerned about the state of American stockpiles of munitions and other equipment.

The aid effort has laid bare the inadequacy of the defense industrial base to replenish those weapons stocks. That has, in some cases, put the Pentagon at dangerously low levels of some munitions, including 155 mm artillery rounds, according to multiple U.S. officials and former military officers.

In a letter to President Donald Trump, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., requested an emergency briefing from the White House and the Defense Department to review the decision “to withhold urgent, lifesaving military assistance to Ukraine.”

He argued that it was possible to both maintain adequate weapons supplies for the U.S. military and send arms badly needed by Kyiv.

Dan Caldwell, a former senior Pentagon official, defended the pause by Hegseth and Colby.

"They are prioritizing the safety and readiness of our own military over pleasing the foreign policy establishment, who often seem in denial about the real constraints the United States military is facing," Caldwell said.

Hegseth has twice before suspended aid to Ukraine without apparent coordination with lawmakers on Capitol Hill or even within the administration. The first time, in February, drew a prickly response from the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Roger Wicker, R-Miss., who called the move “a rookie mistake.”

The next time was in early May, according to a Senate aide. In both cases, the suspensions of aid were reversed within days.

Rep. Michael McCaul, R- Texas, a staunch supporter of military aid to Ukraine, said it was crucial to show Russia that the United States would stand behind Ukraine.

“We can’t let Putin prevail now. President Trump knows that too and it’s why he’s been advocating for peace,” McCaul wrote on social media. “Now is the time to show Putin we mean business. And that starts with ensuring Ukraine has the weapons Congress authorized to pressure Putin to the negotiating table.”

ManOfLaBook on July 4th, 2025 at 20:43 UTC »

You want to tell me that 5% of our surplus weapons that we were going to have to destroy anyway and helps reduce the Soviet Army's readiness by 50%-ish, is a bad idea?

chieftain88 on July 4th, 2025 at 17:55 UTC »

Trump seems to want to run the world order like a mob protection racket. Ukraine won’t pay their protection fee, because 1) they can’t afford to waste anything, 2) they have self-respect and refuse to be extorted, and 3) allies shouldn’t have to, especially when they’re fighting your biggest adversary for you.

Very shameful, and I don’t think a lot of Americans realise that’s whilst their Allies still need to depend on them for now, the trust has absolutely evaporated and Canada, Europe, SK, Japan, Australia, NZ, etc are going to close ranks and work together instead. Even if Trump is removed from power in 2028 with everyone in his administration being held accountable , which at this point seems unlikely, it would still take decades for any kind of real trust to return…

It’s difficult to think of a country intentionally shooting itself in the foot in the way Trump has managed to do in just 6 months

Matrim_WoT on July 4th, 2025 at 17:49 UTC »

My view as it happened alongside this news: I was skeptical when the news first broke that the Defense Department was pausing shipments due to low stockpiles. It didn't seem credible since if it were true, news of this would have been reported when funding was previously passed.

I was also skeptical since the US industry continues to be a major provider for other key allies. For example, NATO members find the 5% goal aspirational in the short to medium term because ramping up their defense industry is a decade long endeavor at a minimum. In the short to medium term broadly speaking, increasing funding that quickly means being reliant on US arms manufacturers to provide equipment until they can finish scaling up their own defense industries since they don't no longer want to be reliant on the US for equipment due to unpredictability. In the event that stockpiles were low, the US industry could and would be focused on production for domestic use.

All this is to say that it the White Houses' politicization of government departments makes me less trustful of the information that comes out from public figures associated to the president from issues pertaining to public health, shipment to Ukraine, Iran's nuclear program capabilities, and so forth.