��������

Nearly 150 days after returning to the Oval Office, US President Donald Trump is no closer to brokering a lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia than he was on Day 1.
This was a signature issue of his campaign. He regularly criticized President Joe Biden’s handling of the conflict and claimed that had he been in office, the war would never have started.
Although foreign policy did not dominate the 2024 election, Trump consistently argued that only he could bring the two sides to the negotiating table and deliver results where others had failed.
Upon taking office, however, he quickly discovered that the reality was more complicated. After initially promising he could achieve peace in 24 hours, almost five months later any reference to a timeline has quietly disappeared.
The problem of finding a path to peace stems from several overlapping challenges. Firstly, the Trump administration is trying to address too many major foreign policy issues at once. This scattershot approach has diluted focus and prevented a sustained effort on any single objective.
In addition to the pursuit of peace in Ukraine, Trump is also renegotiating major trade agreements. The deteriorating US-China relationship, particularly in the Indo-Pacific, consumes a significant share of attention. Meanwhile, the revived nuclear talks with Iran and the Israeli attack on Iran have emerged as another top-tier priority, often bumping other diplomatic efforts — such as Ukraine — down the list.
Another major hurdle is the lack of internal coordination within the US government. Disjointed messaging and inconsistent policy execution have plagued the administration’s approach.
The Department of Defense and intelligence agencies have paused or scaled back various forms of assistance to Ukraine at different points over the past few months. Congressional pressure, especially from those Republicans who remain committed to aiding Ukraine, has helped keep support flowing but uncertainty looms.
Most estimates suggest existing funding will run out by late summer. Yet the administration has offered no clear plan for what happens next. Moscow knows this and is stalling to buy time.
More troubling is the apparent reluctance to exert serious pressure on Russia. In recent months, most of the diplomatic pressure has been directed at Ukraine, which has complied with nearly every US request since Trump returned to office. This lopsided approach is unsustainable. If the administration is truly committed to peace, then some of the burden must also be placed on Moscow.
Perhaps the most damaging dynamic at play is the internal division within the president’s own party. The Republican coalition is fractured when it comes to America’s role in the world, and those divisions are spilling into the administration’s foreign policy. 

The Republican coalition is fractured when it comes to America’s role in the world.

Luke Coffey

One faction, small but principled, consists of Reagan-style conservatives who believe in strong American leadership abroad. They argue that support for Ukraine advances US national security by weakening one of America’s top adversaries. But they are increasingly isolated within a broader conservative movement that is shifting toward skepticism, and in some cases outright hostility, toward international engagement.
A second, and more vocal, faction is the isolationist wing. These conservatives view America’s involvement in Ukraine as a costly distraction and argue that US interests are not at stake. They want a reduced global footprint and see aid to Ukraine as a waste of taxpayer money.
Then there are the so-called “prioritizers,” who argue that all US resources — strategic, diplomatic and military — should be redirected toward confronting China. They believe that maintaining global commitments in Europe or the Middle East undermines America’s ability to face its greatest long-term challenge, in Asia.
Finally, there is a fringe, but increasingly vocal, group within the party who believe that Russia should be considered a potential US partner. They argue that Washington should seek detente with Moscow as a way of counterbalancing China. Not only is this dangerously naive, it also ignores Russia’s record of aggression and subversion against the West.
This internal infighting is not only undermining US policy toward Ukraine, it is also creating uncertainty among other traditional American allies. These partners, who have long relied on steady and predictable US leadership, are increasingly unsure of Washington’s commitment. The lack of consensus within the White House is weakening America’s global credibility and making it more difficult to rally coalitions in defense of shared interests.
So what can Trump do? There is no question that he wants to end the war. Beyond the humanitarian interest, he sees a successful peace deal as a way to define his legacy as the leader who brought peace to Europe when others could not. But good intentions are not enough; if he is serious, he must take concrete steps.
Firstly, the White House must work with Congress to pass a strong package of sanctions that could be enacted if Russia refuses to negotiate in good faith. Secondly, there must be a contingency plan to ensure continued military and financial support to Ukraine if current funding expires. To reassure those concerned about the cost, the recently signed critical minerals agreement between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky could help finance continued US aid.
Trump must also intensify his diplomatic outreach. Countries such as �������� and Turkey, both of which have played meaningful roles in prior negotiations, could serve as conveners for future talks. The White House should actively coordinate with these actors, and others who can help bring both sides to the table.
While the path to peace remains uncertain, the right strategy — one that combines pressure, incentives, and diplomacy — could get peace talks back on track. If Trump can get this right, he will not only bolster his own legacy, he could end a brutal war, bring a just and fair peace to Ukraine, reaffirm American leadership, and help bring lasting peace to the transatlantic region.

• Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.
X: @LukeDCoffey