Trump is shifting military aid for Kyiv from Europe to Latin America

The Trump Administration, in open defiance of the Democratic leadership of the House and Senate Foreign Affairs Committees, has cut tens of millions of dollars in US military aid to European and Middle Eastern countries and will instead channel it to conservative-leaning governments in Latin America. This was reported to the Washington Post by three US officials. The State Department had notified Congress of its intentions in September, prompting New Hampshire’s Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen and New York’s Democratic Representative Gregory Meeks to formally block the reallocation of funds. On Wednesday evening, however, the Administration discreetly informed Congress that it would ignore the block and press ahead: $52 million already earmarked for Slovakia, North Macedonia, Tunisia and Iraq will be redirected to Panama, Peru, Ecuador and Colombia. This was reported by the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

This is the latest move by the Trump administration to reduce spending or the presence of US troops in Europe, and it coincides with a Pentagon review that could lead to a reduction and reorganisation of US bases on the continent. It also forms part of the President’s ongoing erosion of the legislature’s spending powers, a fundamental constitutional authority that Trump has challenged in both major and minor ways. In a letter sent on Wednesday to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Shaheen and Meeks described the decision as a breach of the hold they had imposed and of the legal restrictions on the allocation of funds. Opposition to the reallocation of funds earmarked for Slovakia and North Macedonia was particularly strong, as those resources were included in a supplementary measure on Ukraine, designed specifically for countries affected by the war. “Both houses of Congress allocated these funds for a very specific purpose: to support Ukraine and our European allies in the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion,” they write in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by the Washington Post. “The executive branch does not have unlimited discretion to divert these resources towards the Administration’s political priorities, which have nothing to do with them, nor towards other countries.” The funds for Iraq and Tunisia came from other legislation and were not subject to the same restrictions, although the decision comes at a delicate time for Baghdad, amidst the war with Iran and the US withdrawal from the country.

When asked about the MPs’ objections, the State Department told the Washington Post that the money would be better spent in Latin America, in line with Trump’s foreign policy doctrine, which aims to refocus attention on the Western Hemisphere. “Shifting resources from the Middle East and Europe to the Western Hemisphere is consistent with the national security strategy,” the Department stated in a press release. “The funds allocated to our region will serve to combat narco-terrorism in our hemisphere and help protect the Panama Canal.” “The funds earmarked for the Western Hemisphere will strengthen US security partnerships and counter the military influence of adversaries in our region,” it added. The State Department did not respond to questions regarding the claim by Shaheen and Meeks that the diversion of funds approved by Congress violates statutory requirements. Congress approved the funds in 2022, at the start of the war in Ukraine, when the Biden administration was pressuring European states to supply weapons to Kyiv and enable it to defend itself. At the same time, Washington was also urging non-European countries to halt arms sales to Russia in an attempt to isolate the Kremlin. As well as helping Ukraine and its closest European neighbours, the legislation aimed to ensure that foreign countries began purchasing American military equipment rather than Russian, particularly those that had supplied Kyiv with their own surplus weaponry.

Last month, Democratic staff met with State Department officials to ask how the allocation of funds to Latin American countries could be interpreted as a response to the ‘situation in Ukraine’ or as aid to countries ‘affected by the situation in Ukraine’, in accordance with the wording of the original legislation. According to Meeks and Shaheen, who state this in their letter to Rubio, the Trump Administration failed to explain this either during briefings with members of parliament or in subsequent written responses. Administration officials, they add, “also confirmed that Colombia, Ecuador, Panama and Peru have not provided significant security assistance to Ukraine or to other European allies and partners affected by Russia’s war in Ukraine”.

In September, Rubio travelled to Colombia, Ecuador and Peru to advance the Trump Administration’s flagship policies: the fight against drug trafficking and irregular immigration. The conservative-leaning governments of Ecuador and Colombia are particularly close to Washington, having agreed to calls for deeper and more aggressive cooperation in the fight against drug trafficking. Trump frequently claims to be reviving the Monroe Doctrine, which aimed at US dominance over the Western Hemisphere, to the exclusion of other imperial powers, and asserted a divinely ordained right to American territorial expansion. Rubio explained that the policy will focus on “missed opportunities and neglected partners”. Jeremy Shapiro, director of research at the European Council on Foreign Relations, believes that European countries will see this decision as a “harbinger” of how the Trump administration will set its priorities in world affairs. “It will reinforce the feeling that Europeans may be abandoned if they fail a loyalty test or if they do not do what the administration wants regarding Iran,” he said.