logo
Hegseth halted weapons for Ukraine despite military analysis that the aid wouldn't jeopardize U.S. readiness

Hegseth halted weapons for Ukraine despite military analysis that the aid wouldn't jeopardize U.S. readiness

NBC News4 days ago
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.
'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.
'Rookie mistake'
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.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

With their megabill signed into law, Republicans seek to buck midterm history: From the Politics Desk
With their megabill signed into law, Republicans seek to buck midterm history: From the Politics Desk

NBC News

timean hour ago

  • NBC News

With their megabill signed into law, Republicans seek to buck midterm history: From the Politics Desk

Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail. In today's edition, Steve Kornacki dives into recent midterm history to show what Republicans are up against as they seek to maintain their House majority next year. Plus, Bridget Bowman explores why so many independents are running for statewide office. — Adam Wollner With their megabill signed into law, Republicans seek to buck midterm history As it made its way through Congress, the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" received consistently low marks from the public. This has fed Democratic optimism as the 2026 midterm playing field begins to take shape. Previous unpopular legislative pushes from presidents are being invoked, from Bill Clinton's 1993 tax hike to Barack Obama's health-care overhaul in 2010 to the Donald Trump-led GOP's unsuccessful Obamacare repeal attempt in 2017. All of these efforts preceded dire midterm losses by the party that controlled the White House, an outcome Democrats believe is on the table now. Republicans, meanwhile, face the task of either reversing voters' views of the Trump megabill or shifting the focus away from it and onto other issues where they are better positioned politically. And they must do this with the weight of midterm history stacked against them. This is particularly stark when it comes to the House, where Republicans have just 220 seats. That means that a net loss of just three would cost them their majority next year. And here's how the president's party has fared over the last 15 midterms: Note that in only two cases did the White House party manage to pick up House seats. And both come with a ready explanation. When Clinton's Democrats gained five seats in 1998, it coincided with the GOP's wildly unpopular impeachment effort, which fomented a backlash and drove up the president's approval rating (68% in the exit poll). And the Republicans' gain of eight seats in 2002 came just a year after 9/11, when public support for President George W. Bush remained unusually strong and deep. There were also minimal losses suffered by Republicans in 1986 and 1990, although those can be chalked up in large part to how diminished the House GOP ranks already were heading into those midterms. Simply put, there just weren't that many seats left for Republicans to lose in those years. So, is there anything here Trump's GOP can take solace from now? Ironically, it's the most recent entry on the list. In 2022, Joe Biden's approval rating was barely at 40%, a level that has often correlated with heavy midterm losses. And Biden and his party were also saddled with an unpopular legislative achievement, the Inflation Reduction Act. But despite forecasts of a bloodbath, Democrats lost only a net of nine House seats, coming far closer to retaining their majority than anyone had expected. It's a matter of debate what exactly caused this, but the bottom line is that a sizable number of voters with negative views of Biden and his agenda nonetheless voted for Democratic candidates. Some combination of negative views of Trump, the Republican Party and individual Republican candidates likely played a role. Trump's current approval rating is at 46.4%, according to the RealClearPolitics polling average. That's four points better than Biden's was on Election Day 2022 and also three points above where Trump himself was during his first midterm in 2018, when his party lost 41 House seats. Historically speaking, though, it's still a perilous place for an incumbent to be. While Republicans certainly hope that Trump can maintain and even improve on his current standing, their bigger hope may lie in our latest NBC News Decision Desk poll, which found that 57% of Americans have a negative view of the Democratic Party. If they can push that number even higher, it could offer them their best — and maybe only — chance at defying midterm history. Dan Osborn is the latest independent to launch a statewide run By Bridget Bowman Dan Osborn, a mechanic and Navy veteran, is launching another run for Senate in Nebraska, becoming the latest candidate to run for statewide office who is looking to capitalize on voters' disdain for both parties. 'I want to show people that we can get back to working with a government that's by and for the people and not for the 1% and the corporations,' Osborn said in an interview with NBC News ahead of his launch on Tuesday. Republicans have already signaled they plan to replicate the playbook they used against Osborn last year and paint him as a Democrat masquerading as an independent. Osborn made a surprisingly competitive run against GOP Sen. Deb Fischer last year, losing by 7 points as Trump carried Nebraska by 20 points. But Osborn contends he is a 'lifelong independent,' not having registered to vote with either party and describing himself as fiscally conservative and more socially liberal. He could have a slightly easier time campaigning without a party label than other independent Senate candidates running in deeply Republican states who have clearer, and recent, ties to the Democratic Party. In Mississippi, Ty Pinkins left the Democratic Party to challenge GOP Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith as an independent in 2026. But he has run for office multiple times as a Democrat, including an unsuccessful race last year against GOP Sen. Roger Wicker. In Idaho, former state Rep. Todd Achilles, another Democrat-turned-independent, is running against Republican Senate Jim Risch. And in South Dakota, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Brian Bengs launched an independent bid against GOP Sen. Mike Rounds after losing a 2022 Senate race as a Democrat. This new wave of independent Senate campaigns underscore just how toxic the Democratic brand has become in ruby red states. Bengs, for example, told The New York Times that voters 'ruled out any possibility of supporting me because the letter 'D' was beside my name.' Meanwhile, Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan, a longtime Democrat, is running as a third-party candidate for governor of battleground Michigan. But recent history shows other independent candidates have struggled to overcome the partisan bent of their states or compete against the two major parties. The last time voters sent a new independent candidate to the Senate was in 2012, when Maine's Angus King won his first term, and that was after he had served as the state's governor. King and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., have easily won re-election since their first campaigns and caucus with Democrats. There are currently no independent governors. Still, these candidates believe they have an opening among voters who have negative views of Republicans and Democrats. As Duggan recently told NBC News, 'Every place I go, the depth of anger at the two parties runs deep.'

Woke Maine governor melts down at surprise question about VERY bad habit she's accused of having
Woke Maine governor melts down at surprise question about VERY bad habit she's accused of having

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

Woke Maine governor melts down at surprise question about VERY bad habit she's accused of having

Maine Governor Janet Mills spiraled into a public outburst after being unexpectedly pressed about her alleged cocaine habit, stemming from a decades-old scandal. The Democratic lawmaker, 77, was approached in Washington DC last month - with the man behind the camera asking jaw-dropping questions about the white powdery drug. 'Is sniffing cocaine at work a human right, Janet,' the brazen interviewer, who shared the footage with Fox Digital, asked the blue pant suit-wearing politician. 'What the f**k,' Mills responded as she briefly stopped in her tracks from the jarring question - a dig at a drug scandal she was accused of being involved in during the 1990s. The persistent inquirer did not stop there, asking Mills has much the cost of an 'eight ball' - slang for an eight-ounce portion - has gone up due to inflation. But she did not take the bait on that one and shared no response as she continued walking away. This video was sent to Fox days after it was revealed the Department of Justice shot down Mills' assertion that the investigation into her alleged drug use decades ago was politically motivated. More than 30 years ago, Mills was probed by Maine's US Attorney's Office, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the state's Bureau of Intergovernmental Drug Enforcement (BIDE). Mills, who was then serving as a district attorney, was named in a tip from a drug suspect. She was never charged with any crimes, and has since claimed she was subjected to the reputation-tarnishing accusations because of her left-leaning political stances and her criticism of BIDE. 'It's scary,' Mills told the Portland Press Herald in 1991. 'Maine apparently has a secret police force at work that can ruin the reputation of any who opposes it.' Despite maintaining her stance that she was set up, Fox recently dug up a 1995 memo from the DOJ, claiming all of Mills' claims that she was being libeled, slandered and politically attacked were 'unsubstantiated.' According to the memo, Mills had sued a WCSH-TV at the end of 1990 for reporting that she was being investigated by a grand jury over alleged illicit substance use. Her lawyer then claimed 'the press received leaks from BIDE law enforcement officials.' While the details of the lawsuit brought against the reporter are not available, according to Fox, a Lewiston Sun-Journal story from 1991 states attempts to 'end drug probe rumors' were disregarded by a judge. Mills had also accused investigators of falsifying testimonies and threatening witnesses to give unflattering statements, but the department found evidence of no such things. 'The USAO in Maine conducted a proper investigation of serious allegations; no misconduct of any kind can fairly be attributed to any member of that office,' the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility found in 1995, according to Fox. Mills recently found her self embroiled in a transgender sports battle with President Donald Trump. Trump had accused Maine of failing to comply with his executive order barring transgender athletes from sports. Soon after the secretary's letter was sent, Maine's Department of Education could not access several sources of federal funds for a state nutrition program, according to the court´s written order. Maine quickly sued the Trump administration, where the state's attorneys argued that the child nutrition program received or was due to receive more than $1.8 million for the current fiscal year. At the start of May, Trump agreed to halt all efforts to freeze funds intended for the state's child nutrition program after initially suspending those dollars due to the disagreement. In response, the state dropped its lawsuit that had been filed against the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey announced. 'It's unfortunate that my office had to resort to federal court just to get USDA to comply with the law and its own regulations,' Frey said in a statement.

Trump's tariff deadline delay brings hope, confusion to trade partners, businesses
Trump's tariff deadline delay brings hope, confusion to trade partners, businesses

NBC News

time2 hours ago

  • NBC News

Trump's tariff deadline delay brings hope, confusion to trade partners, businesses

WASHINGTON, (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's latest tariff delay provided some hope to major trade partners Japan, South Korea and the European Union that deals to ease duties could still be reached, while bewildering some smaller exporters such as South Africa and leaving companies with no clarity on the path forward. Trump's form letters to 14 countries informing them of planned tariff rates of 25% to 40% provided what he called a final warning on his 'reciprocal' tariffs, while pushing back Wednesday's previous deadline to August 1, a date he said on Tuesday was final, declaring: 'No extensions will be granted.' The move reflects Trump's frustration with trade negotiations that are proving lengthier and more complicated than the '90 deals in 90 days' that he expected, trade experts and administration officials say. The president, who announced on Tuesday a 50% tariff on imported copper and said long-threatened levies on semiconductors and pharmaceuticals were coming soon, said he has long favored simple tariffs over tedious trade talks that often involve red lines for some countries and their own requests for U.S. concessions. Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba focused on the positive, saying his government would press ahead with negotiations toward a deal that 'benefits both countries, while protecting Japan's national interest.' Facing a 25% general U.S. tariff, Japan wants relief for its export-dependent auto industry from Trump's separate 25% automotive tariffs. It also has resisted demands for increased purchases of American rice. Japan, once viewed as an early favorite for a deal, faces an upper house election on July 20 and too many concessions could put Ishiba's ruling Liberal Democratic Party at risk. 'These countries are not folding. They're not giving him what he wants, so he's added another threat,' said William Reinsch, a former U.S. Commerce Department official who is a senior trade adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'He's put a new number to it and extended the deadline.' South Korea, where President Lee Jae Myung has been in office less than a month, also pledged to intensify talks for 'a mutually beneficial result' while analysts warned he would not be 'a pushover' for Trump or put South Korea at a disadvantage to Japan. Stephen Miran, chairman of the White House's Council of Economic Advisers, told Fox News on Tuesday more deals were possible even before the end of this week, as long as countries made concessions deemed worthy by Trump. India, in particular, looked close to a deal, but prospects were less clear for smaller countries such as South Africa, Thailand and Malaysia, which face tariffs of 30%, 36% and 25%, respectively. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa pushed back on Trump's 30% tariff rate, calling it out of sync with an average 7.6% South African tariff rate. But he instructed his negotiators to 'urgently engage' with Trump's team on a framework first submitted by the South African side on May 20. The Trump administration's negotiating time may be eaten up with larger partners, such as the EU, which did not get a warning letter or a change to its prescribed 20% tariff rate, double the 10% baseline. Sources familiar with the EU talks have told Reuters a deal could involve carve-outs for aircraft and parts, medical equipment and alcoholic spirits. They say the EU also wants certain automakers to export to the U.S. at rates below the 25% auto tariff. Such a deal would be similar to a framework agreement with the United Kingdom that had carve-outs for autos, steel and aircraft engines. Final squeeze After announcing his global 'Liberation Day' tariffs of 11%-50% in early April, Trump quickly dialed them back to 10% for most countries amid bond market turmoil to buy time for negotiations to lower foreign tariffs and trade barriers. Ryan Majerus, another former U.S. Commerce official, said Trump's three-month pause had not produced the desired results, and now the president was seeking to maximize his negotiating leverage. 'They're going to pressure-test things and see how far they can go, particularly for countries where there hasn't been any movement in the talks,' said Majerus, who is a partner at Washington's King and Spalding law firm. Steadier markets and strong economic data give Trump some room to maneuver, but time is short and 'the more granular you get in negotiating these things, the tougher the sledding gets,' he added. The deadline extension provides no relief to companies that are trying to keep up with Trump's tariffs. Executives say the rapidly shifting tariff landscape has paralyzed decision-making as they try to adjust their supply chains and cost structures to avoid tariff-induced price hikes. 'No company can really prepare for this,' said Hubertus Breier, chief technology officer for Germany's Lapp Holdings, a family-owned maker of cables, wires and robotics for factories. 'We are already incurring losses simply because of the uncertainty of the daily changing situation.' Lapp has difficult choices — absorb additional costs or pass them on to customers. Assuming permanently higher prices and costs, however, could threaten its long-term existence, Breier added. DeMejico, a family business in Valencia, California with a plant in Mexico that builds traditional Spanish and Mexican-style furniture, is struggling to adapt to Trump's 50% tariffs on imported steel. Robert Luna, the company's president, said the firm is importing heavy steel latches, hinges and trim parts separately to simplify the tariff calculation process and installing them at its Los Angeles-area showroom. The tariffs and higher U.S. wage costs are already inflating prices, and DeMejico faces further cost increases on furniture if Trump hits Mexico with a reciprocal tariff, Luna said. 'It's hard to do anything about this as a small business owner, so I just try to be stoic and see what happens,' Luna said, adding: 'My biggest worry is just keeping the company alive.' Luna said he thought the Trump administration was 'setting up the foundation to train people to pay tariffs.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store