Trump Resumes Ukraine Arms Supplies, Funded by NATO: Financing Logic and the 50-Day Sanctions Pause

On 14 July 2025, US President Donald Trump announced the immediate resumption of American arms supplies to Ukraine. The decision marks a significant departure from months of uncertainty regarding the future of US support for Kyiv, which had stalled amidst domestic political divisions in Washington and increasing calls from the Trump administration for NATO allies to bear a greater share of the financial burden. The renewed commitment, now structured to be financed primarily by European NATO partners, reflects a recalibrated transatlantic arrangement—one driven less by altruism and more by fiscal conservatism and strategic burden-shifting.

In the same address, President Trump also introduced a 50-day moratorium on the imposition of secondary sanctions on foreign entities still conducting trade with Russia, ostensibly to allow time for adjustments and negotiations. Here we examine both aspects of the announcement: the logic and mechanisms behind the new NATO-based financing scheme for Ukraine’s defence, and the motivations and consequences behind the temporary delay in implementing secondary sanctions on Russia.

A Return to Lethal Aid—On Other Nations’ Dime

President Trump’s reinstatement of American arms transfers to Ukraine is premised on a core principle of his administration’s foreign policy: that the United States should no longer unilaterally shoulder the costs of defending Europe. Since returning to office in January 2025, Trump has consistently framed NATO as an alliance in which America has overpaid and been underappreciated. His latest move—resuming US weapons flows while insisting on European reimbursement—is intended to realign that balance.

How the Financing Mechanism Is Expected to Work

Under the announced plan, European NATO members will deposit funds into a newly designated NATO trust facility, overseen by the North Atlantic Council, from which the United States will be reimbursed for arms and logistical assistance provided to Ukraine. These arms may include precision munitions, drone systems, radar units and potentially longer-range missiles previously withheld due to political uncertainty in Washington.

The practical framework resembles a scaled-up version of the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA), with the difference being that US arms and matériel will be drawn directly from American stockpiles or defence contractors, bypassing the need for a US Congressional appropriation—an increasingly fraught prospect given the current domestic political climate.

Key contributors to the fund are expected to include Germany, the United Kingdom, Poland, France and the Nordic countries, most of whom had already increased their defence budgets following the 2022 invasion. By tying the mechanism to NATO infrastructure, Trump seeks to reassure allies that the programme will be rules-based and transparent, while simultaneously maintaining tight executive control over American involvement.

Strategic Logic Behind the Decision

While some interpret the resumption of arms supplies as a softening of Trump’s stance on Ukraine, the reality is more transactional. Several strategic calculations appear to underpin the move:

1. European Burden-Sharing: Trump’s announcement forces European states to put real money into the alliance’s eastern flank, vindicating his long-standing claim that America should not be the principal underwriter of European security.

   
   

2. Political Cover: By securing NATO financing, Trump can claim to be supporting Ukraine without increasing the US fiscal deficit—a position likely to appeal to fiscal conservatives and his base.

   
   

3. Industry Incentives: US defence manufacturers stand to benefit significantly from the arrangement, as European reimbursement for American-produced arms flows directly into the domestic arms sector without requiring an appropriations bill.

   
   

4. Preserving Influence: The United States retains strategic influence over the war in Ukraine by remaining the primary supplier of certain high-tech systems (e.g. stealth drones, long-range HIMARS pods), even if Europe is footing the bill.

The 50-Day Moratorium on Secondary Sanctions

Alongside the arms announcement, Trump introduced a temporary suspension—a 50-day moratorium—on the application of secondary sanctions against non-Western companies and governments continuing to engage in commerce with sanctioned Russian entities. This includes trade in oil, technology, electronics and dual-use goods.

The decision has provoked criticism from hawkish voices in both Washington and European capitals, who argue that effective sanctions enforcement is crucial to degrading Russia’s war-making capacity. However the Trump administration appears to have calculated that such a moratorium serves several short-term purposes.

Possible Motivations for the Sanctions Delay

1. Market Stabilisation: Trump may wish to avoid a spike in global energy prices, particularly oil, that would likely follow a dramatic tightening of sanctions enforcement—especially in the summer months when inflation remains politically sensitive.

   
   

2. Diplomatic Leverage: The moratorium may be designed as a grace period to pressure major non-aligned states—such as India, Turkey and Gulf Arab nations—to curtail dealings with Russia voluntarily in exchange for continued access to Western markets. It sets a countdown clock without immediately rupturing trade ties.

   
   

3. Geopolitical Signalling: Trump may be attempting to show flexibility to potential mediators or third-party states (e.g. China, India or the UAE), framing the sanctions as negotiable tools rather than fixed penalties—thereby preserving diplomatic channels for future settlements.

   
   

4. Negotiation with Russia: Some analysts speculate that the 50-day window is intended to coincide with backchannel peace discussions, possibly offering Moscow a final opportunity to alter her position before a harsher sanctions regime is enacted.

Strategic Risks and Implications

The twin announcements present both opportunities and hazards. While the financing model may stabilise Ukraine’s arms supply in the medium term, it also risks placing European allies in the position of financiers without decision-making power, especially if Washington continues to dominate the logistics and targeting architecture of arms usage.

Meanwhile the sanctions moratorium risks signalling weakness, particularly if Russia interprets the delay as evidence of transatlantic disunity or hesitation. There is also the danger that non-aligned nations will exploit the window to rush exports to Russia before restrictions are enforced, thereby weakening the overall effectiveness of the sanctions regime.

For Ukraine the resumption of US arms is undoubtedly welcome, even if filtered through a more complex financing mechanism. But the 50-day delay on further sanctioning Russia’s global economic lifelines raises concerns that the West is willing to tolerate continued aggression in the interest of geopolitical flexibility.

A Transactional Balance

President Trump’s 14 July announcement reflects the core logic of his foreign policy: transactional, cost-sensitive, and sceptical of unilateral commitments. The resumption of American arms deliveries to Ukraine—financed by NATO partners—offers an elegant way to maintain strategic influence without incurring domestic fiscal cost. At the same time, the moratorium on secondary sanctions offers a temporary reprieve to Russia’s trading partners and an implicit signal that economic pressure remains a negotiable instrument.

What remains unclear is whether such manoeuvres, while tactically shrewd, will yield the strategic cohesion required to maintain pressure on Russia and ensure Ukraine’s survival. The next 50 days may well decide the effectiveness of this recalibrated transatlantic posture—and whether transactionalism can deliver collective security.