JD Vance's Risk with Ukraine Aid Proved Successful
The vice president dedicated years to efforts aimed at concluding U.S. participation in the conflict.
TroibNews 
When Vice President JD Vance spoke up during President Donald Trump’s meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office last week, he took a bold risk. Interjecting in public meetings between heads of state is uncommon for vice presidents, and his remarks potentially jeopardized the carefully defined role he has been establishing in the new administration: as a supporting player to Trump and the president’s boisterous associate, Elon Musk.
However, Vance’s decision to enter the spotlight has yielded at least one notable outcome. Following Zelenskyy’s departure from the West Wing without finalizing a much-anticipated mineral rights agreement, the White House took a cue from one of Vance’s key foreign policy proposals: a complete halt to U.S. military aid to Ukraine.
The administration’s move to pause all assistance to Ukraine may merely serve as a bargaining tactic in Trump's strategy to draw Ukraine back into negotiations for a cease-fire. It could also be quickly reversed if Zelenskyy offers further concessions to Trump. Yet, regardless of the duration of the pause, it signifies a remarkable acknowledgment of the non-interventionist foreign policy perspective that Vance advocates—one that has only recently begun to gain traction within the Republican Party.
When Vance joined the Senate in January 2023, he was among a select group of Republicans willing to question U.S. support for Ukraine, being the sole member of the Senate GOP who urged an outright cessation of aid. “The thing that I’m most proud of is that we are on the cusp of radically changing U.S. policy towards Ukraine,” Vance shared with me in late 2023 during a profile interview for PMG Magazine. “It’s taken a lot of work.”
Throughout his two years in the Senate, Vance has worked to challenge the GOP’s hawkish consensus with mixed success. In April 2024, after spearheading efforts to persuade his Republican colleagues in the House to reject a $61 billion supplemental aid package for Ukraine, the majority of Republicans—including House Speaker Mike Johnson—joined Democratic members in supporting the package.
Now, less than a year after this significant setback, the Trump administration has begun to implement Vance’s vision during a particularly delicate diplomatic phase.
This shift can largely be attributed to Vance’s influence in shaping the new administration. Since Trump’s election in November, Vance and his allies have significantly contributed to staffing the administration’s foreign policy team. Andy Baker, a senior foreign policy adviser in Vance’s Senate office, has played a key role in populating Trump’s Department of Defense, which now includes individuals like Dan Caldwell—a prominent figure among conservative “restrainers” and a long-time informal adviser to Vance—as a senior adviser to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The mid-level positions at Trump’s Pentagon and State Department, where most practical policy implementation occurs, are filled with conservative restrainers and realists such as Elbridge Colby, currently awaiting confirmation as undersecretary of defense for policy, and Alexander Velez-Green, who transitioned from the Ukraine-skeptical Heritage Foundation to join Trump's DoD.
These staffing changes highlight a crucial distinction between Trump’s and Vance’s approaches to foreign policy. In conversations about Vance, I’ve heard many conservatives suggest that Trump tends to view individual foreign policy issues transactionally—akin to a business negotiation modeled on The Art of the Deal—while Vance interprets them ideologically, as elements of broader conflicts shaping the global order. From Vance's foreign policy perspective, pausing aid to Ukraine is not merely a negotiating tactic; it represents a critical step in challenging the “rules-based international order” that he believes has led to the improper use of American power overseas and the decline of American economic and cultural influence at home.
This worldview—which Vance extensively discussed with me during an interview last year—offers a more nuanced analysis compared to the transactional perspective that defines Trump’s foreign policy. But with Vance now in the vice presidential office, he has a strong advocate for this ideology within the West Wing. Vance’s perspective asserts that the “rules-based international order,” including the network of U.S.-led multinational organizations like NATO and the IMF, primarily serves as a façade for an American empire that enriches global elites at the expense of ordinary Americans—particularly those from his hometown of Middletown, Ohio. According to Vance, the intended benefit of this arrangement during the Cold War was the spread of liberal democracy and free-market policies to nations like China. However, with that promise unfulfilled, he argues, the system merely perpetuates itself to serve elite economic interests.
Reflecting on this critique, it's clear why Vance and his supporters harbor animosity toward Ukraine. For conservatives like Vance, Zelenskyy symbolizes the foreign nations that have profited from the protection and generosity of the U.S.-led postwar order—representing those who, in Vance’s view, have contributed to the gradual decline of his community.
In light of this, Vance’s remarks in the Oval Office, admonishing Zelenskyy for not expressing gratitude toward the U.S.—“Have you ever said ‘thank you’ once?” he inquired—carry weight beyond the immediate context of cease-fire negotiations. They evoke a sentiment he expressed at a campaign rally in Newton, Pennsylvania, last September. “You know what I wish Zelenskyy would do when he comes to the United States of America?” Vance asked a crowd of MAGA-hat-wearing supporters gathered under a barn in an empty field. “Say thank you to the people of Pennsylvania and everybody else."
Allen M Lee contributed to this report for TROIB News
However, Vance’s decision to enter the spotlight has yielded at least one notable outcome. Following Zelenskyy’s departure from the West Wing without finalizing a much-anticipated mineral rights agreement, the White House took a cue from one of Vance’s key foreign policy proposals: a complete halt to U.S. military aid to Ukraine.
The administration’s move to pause all assistance to Ukraine may merely serve as a bargaining tactic in Trump's strategy to draw Ukraine back into negotiations for a cease-fire. It could also be quickly reversed if Zelenskyy offers further concessions to Trump. Yet, regardless of the duration of the pause, it signifies a remarkable acknowledgment of the non-interventionist foreign policy perspective that Vance advocates—one that has only recently begun to gain traction within the Republican Party.
When Vance joined the Senate in January 2023, he was among a select group of Republicans willing to question U.S. support for Ukraine, being the sole member of the Senate GOP who urged an outright cessation of aid. “The thing that I’m most proud of is that we are on the cusp of radically changing U.S. policy towards Ukraine,” Vance shared with me in late 2023 during a profile interview for PMG Magazine. “It’s taken a lot of work.”
Throughout his two years in the Senate, Vance has worked to challenge the GOP’s hawkish consensus with mixed success. In April 2024, after spearheading efforts to persuade his Republican colleagues in the House to reject a $61 billion supplemental aid package for Ukraine, the majority of Republicans—including House Speaker Mike Johnson—joined Democratic members in supporting the package.
Now, less than a year after this significant setback, the Trump administration has begun to implement Vance’s vision during a particularly delicate diplomatic phase.
This shift can largely be attributed to Vance’s influence in shaping the new administration. Since Trump’s election in November, Vance and his allies have significantly contributed to staffing the administration’s foreign policy team. Andy Baker, a senior foreign policy adviser in Vance’s Senate office, has played a key role in populating Trump’s Department of Defense, which now includes individuals like Dan Caldwell—a prominent figure among conservative “restrainers” and a long-time informal adviser to Vance—as a senior adviser to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The mid-level positions at Trump’s Pentagon and State Department, where most practical policy implementation occurs, are filled with conservative restrainers and realists such as Elbridge Colby, currently awaiting confirmation as undersecretary of defense for policy, and Alexander Velez-Green, who transitioned from the Ukraine-skeptical Heritage Foundation to join Trump's DoD.
These staffing changes highlight a crucial distinction between Trump’s and Vance’s approaches to foreign policy. In conversations about Vance, I’ve heard many conservatives suggest that Trump tends to view individual foreign policy issues transactionally—akin to a business negotiation modeled on The Art of the Deal—while Vance interprets them ideologically, as elements of broader conflicts shaping the global order. From Vance's foreign policy perspective, pausing aid to Ukraine is not merely a negotiating tactic; it represents a critical step in challenging the “rules-based international order” that he believes has led to the improper use of American power overseas and the decline of American economic and cultural influence at home.
This worldview—which Vance extensively discussed with me during an interview last year—offers a more nuanced analysis compared to the transactional perspective that defines Trump’s foreign policy. But with Vance now in the vice presidential office, he has a strong advocate for this ideology within the West Wing. Vance’s perspective asserts that the “rules-based international order,” including the network of U.S.-led multinational organizations like NATO and the IMF, primarily serves as a façade for an American empire that enriches global elites at the expense of ordinary Americans—particularly those from his hometown of Middletown, Ohio. According to Vance, the intended benefit of this arrangement during the Cold War was the spread of liberal democracy and free-market policies to nations like China. However, with that promise unfulfilled, he argues, the system merely perpetuates itself to serve elite economic interests.
Reflecting on this critique, it's clear why Vance and his supporters harbor animosity toward Ukraine. For conservatives like Vance, Zelenskyy symbolizes the foreign nations that have profited from the protection and generosity of the U.S.-led postwar order—representing those who, in Vance’s view, have contributed to the gradual decline of his community.
In light of this, Vance’s remarks in the Oval Office, admonishing Zelenskyy for not expressing gratitude toward the U.S.—“Have you ever said ‘thank you’ once?” he inquired—carry weight beyond the immediate context of cease-fire negotiations. They evoke a sentiment he expressed at a campaign rally in Newton, Pennsylvania, last September. “You know what I wish Zelenskyy would do when he comes to the United States of America?” Vance asked a crowd of MAGA-hat-wearing supporters gathered under a barn in an empty field. “Say thank you to the people of Pennsylvania and everybody else."
Allen M Lee contributed to this report for TROIB News
