When a President Ignores the Law. The World Pays the Price

The White House's unilateral decision to suspend congressionally approved aide to Ukraine is unlawful and must be challenged.

Jul 03, 2025

This week’s announcement by the Trump White House that it had unilaterally decided to withhold congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine is more than a political maneuver, it’s a direct violation of U.S. law, a betrayal of an ally under fire, and a dangerous erosion of America’s global credibility. Importantly, it places Russian interests first—and America last. Inescapably, it is an invitation for Putin to exploit the vulnerability of Ukraine with increased attacks on civilians.

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly justified the move bluntly:

“This decision was made to put America’s interests first following a [Pentagon] review of our nation’s military support and assistance to other countries across the globe.”

Let’s be clear: the aid in question, including vital weapons, air defense systems, and critical munitions, was not speculative. It was passed by Congress, signed into law, and budgeted for Ukraine’s defense. According to the Financial Times, “some shipments were already en route to Ukraine when they were halted.” The allocation from Congress included Patriot interceptors, explicitly intended to protect civilians from Russian missile strikes.

Yet today, in a move justified by vague references to “U.S. military readiness,” the White House announced it was halting delivery. In other words, aid that was approved, paid for, and—according to sources—ready to ship is now being blocked by executive fiat.

This is not the first time such a tactic has been used, though the consequences were far less dire for Ukraine in 2019. That year, the Trump administration similarly froze aid to Ukraine, resulting in a formal legal rebuke from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, which ruled that the delay violated federal law. That incident led to President Trump’s first impeachment.

Congress, Not the President, Decides

The Appropriations Clause of the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 7) gives Congress exclusive power over federal spending. The President cannot legally cancel, withhold, or redirect funds that have been appropriated without violating the Constitution. This form of unilateral action is not only a breach of law but also a violation of the Oath of Office to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Furthermore, the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) of 1974 explicitly prohibits the President from withholding funds unless:

Congress formally rescinds the appropriation, or
Forty-five days pass without legislative approval of a rescission request.

Neither condition applies here: no new law was passed, no rescission request was made, and no 45-day period was observed.

“Low Stocks” Is Not a Legal Exception

Labeling this a “strategic pause” due to low U.S. inventories does not override federal law. The ICA includes emergency exceptions—such as a nuclear crisis—but routine logistical concerns are not among them.

Here, the Pentagon merely stated that some stockpiles were “too low to justify immediate transfer.” That is a logistical challenge—not a legal or national emergency. The law doesn’t allow discretion based on stock comfort—it demands compliance.

Grossly Disproportional Implications

Just how important are these weapons to replenish America’s stock? Here is a list of armaments approved by Congress, presently being held in Poland for delivery to Ukraine, but suspended by President Trump and reappropriated to stockpile for the U.S. contrary to law.

92 AIM missiles

30 Patriot missiles (PAC3MSE)

8496 155 mm Howitzer rounds

142AGM-114 Hellfire missiles

252 GMLRs missiles

25 Stinger missiles

125 AT-4grenade launchers.

In terms of the present American military stockpile and the 1 trillion dollar budget for this 2025, the armaments are inconsequential to the United States. For Ukraine they mean that hundreds of innocent lives are saved and territory can be defended against further Russian theft.

The Justification Appears Insincere on Its Face

Secretary of State Pete Hegseth has declared a foreign policy shift away from Ukraine. This marks the second time in a month that lifesaving weapons expected by Ukraine have been “redirected.”

The sincerity of the administration’s claim—that the denial of aid is about replenishing U.S. military stockpiles—is undermined by its simultaneous assertion that American military readiness is at its peak.

A more plausible explanation is that the White House has taken yet another unilateral step—one of dozens over the past five months—toward appeasing Moscow. Withholding allocated funds is likely part of the “emphasis shift” away from Ukraine, as described by Secretary Hegseth.

"The White House is telling the American people that our military is the best prepared in history. That we have unprecedented military readiness. And at the same time, they claim that the equipment promised for Ukraine as an act of law by Congress-- equipment which would immediately save lives in an actual ongoing mass war -- can’t be given because we don't have enough. Are we really supposed to believe both?" DW Phillips

Will Congress Surrender Its Constitutional Duties?

The White House’s unilateral decision to nullify congressionally appropriated support for Ukraine appears to rely on two assumptions:

That the Republican majority in Congress will protect President Trump from accountability, and
That the administration can construct a plausible pretext (e.g., stockpile shortages) to give congressional allies political cover for their inaction.

In a positive development, at least on Republican member of the House of Representatives did respond. Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick wrote to the White House, requested an emergency briefing, explained:

“While the United States needs to continue to strengthen our defense industrial base here at home, we can and must simultaneously provide urgently needed assistance to our allies who are defending their freedom from brutal invading dictators. To not do both is unacceptable.”

Dereliction of Duty?

Does a low stockpile rise to the level of an imminent nuclear crisis that would create a loophole for the President to disregard American law? That is the implication of the White House argument. But, if true, then how is America at its peak military readiness as asserted by the White House? What is the truth?

There is a more fundamental crisis suggested by the White House argument for ignoring the law. If keeping our legally binding commitment to send a relatively negligible amount of supplies to Ukraine means undermining U..S. security, then the American military has far greater problems solve.

As national security law specialist William Collins observed:

If our stockpiles are so low that we can't spare the small number of missiles and munitions pledged to Ukraine, an amount that would not even last days in a conflict with China, the Department of Defense has far bigger problems than a munitions shortage. This falls into the zone of dereliction of duty upto and including very senior leadership, uniform and civilian, current in the building.

The Real-World Cost

As a result of this five-month strategy of appeasement, Russia has been emboldened to intensify its assault on civilians. The messaging from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has effectively conveyed that no level of Russian aggression, including the targeting of civilians, will prompt a meaningful U.S. response.

If Ukraine is limited in its ability to defend itself, Russia will steal and kill with impunity. This is the Russian version of “peace.” Unsurprisingly, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov applauded the White House’s decision, saying:

“As far as we understand, the reason for the decision was empty warehouses – but the fewer weapons supplied to Ukraine, the closer the end of the ‘special military operation.’”

Every time President Trump appeases Moscow, Putin responds by killing more innocents. This week alone, Ukraine endured over 537 missile and drone attacks in a single day. Since President Trump reentered office and began a de facto policy of concessions to Russia—under the guise of peace talks—Russian missile attacks have increased dramatically.

A Dangerous Precedent and Credibility Risk

If presidents can arbitrarily pause congressionally approved defense aid on internal logistical grounds, then the separation of powers is meaningless. This Fourth of July, Americans must remember that Congress never intended for the executive to override laws and policies with the stroke of a pen.

Internationally, this sends two dangerous signals:

That U.S. leadership is not bound by its own Constitution, making the country less stable and more arbitrary.
That U.S. commitments are conditional, not reliable, a message that emboldens authoritarians like Vladimir Putin.

This "Pause" Doesn’t Pass the Test

Yes, national stock readiness matters—but not more than the rule of law. This administration’s justification does not meet the legal threshold for withholding appropriated funds. Unless Congress rescinds the appropriation or an emergency exception is properly invoked, the obligation to deliver aid remains binding. To reverse this, lawmakers must either formally change the law—or compel the White House to comply with it.

We have arrived at a concerning moment full of consequence. The impact of an unlawful decision to end run Congress and enable the Putin invasion machine, inescapably means increased violence from the Kremlin and the death of Ukrainian innocents. It is a message to the world that the concerns expressed by leaders over five months of appeasement driven American foreign policy has extended to a disregard for our own laws and Constitution such that we are a wholly unreliable ally.

During the last five months, the President of Ukraine has bent over backwards to honor the demands of President Trump. Zelensky agreed to unconditional ceasefire, signed away mineral rights, and made difficult concessions. In return he has been vilified, ignored, denied the ability to purchase defense systems that protect the innocent, and now denied previously funded weapons authorized into law by the United States Congress.

This “pause” is not prudence. It is overreach. Ukraine and the world will pay the price. America is never “put first” by suspending the Constitution, violating its laws, or enabling the criminal actions of its enemies.

Feel free to click the ❤️ button on this post so more people can discover it on Substack. Tell me 😍 what you think in the comments. Thank you friend!

DW Phillips is a constitutional attorney, a filmmaker, writer and director of Ukraine Story, a foundation for journalism and documentary reporting.