Trump's NATO Weapons Deal for Ukraine Faces MAGA Backlash
Published 15 July 2025
Highlights
- Donald Trump's decision to sell weapons to Ukraine via NATO has sparked backlash from his MAGA supporters, including Marjorie Taylor Greene and Steve Bannon.
- Trump announced the weapons deal on Monday, emphasizing that European allies would pay for the US-made arms, including Patriot missiles.
- Greene criticized the move as a betrayal of Trump's campaign promise to end US involvement in foreign wars, highlighting ongoing Republican opposition to Ukraine aid.
- The White House clarified that secondary sanctions could be imposed on countries trading with Russia if a peace deal is not reached within 50 days.
- Despite the backlash, some argue that Europe's financial responsibility for the weapons mitigates concerns among Trump's isolationist base.
Donald Trump's recent announcement to sell weapons to Ukraine through NATO has ignited criticism from within his own "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) movement. The decision, revealed on Monday, marks a significant shift in Trump's foreign policy stance, which has traditionally leaned towards reducing US involvement in overseas conflicts.
MAGA Allies Voice Discontent
Prominent MAGA figures, including Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene and former Trump strategist Steve Bannon, have publicly denounced the plan. Greene, a staunch Trump ally, expressed her disapproval, stating, "MAGA did not vote for more weapons to Ukraine." She emphasized that the move contradicts Trump's campaign promise to end US participation in foreign wars, a sentiment echoed by many within the Republican base.
Bannon, speaking on his War Room podcast, described the Ukraine conflict as a "European war" and argued that Europe should handle it independently. "We're about to arm people we have literally no control over," he warned, highlighting concerns about escalating US involvement.
Details of the Weapons Deal
The weapons package, which includes Patriot missiles, is set to be funded by European allies, who will increase their defense spending to 5% of GDP. Trump assured that the US would manufacture the weapons but not bear the financial burden, stating, "We're not buying it, but we will manufacture it, and they're going to be paying for it."
Despite these assurances, Greene remains skeptical, arguing that indirect costs, such as US training missions and contributions to NATO, still implicate American taxpayers. "Without a shadow of a doubt, our tax dollars are being used," she told the New York Times.
Political Implications and Future Steps
The announcement comes amid broader tensions within the Republican Party over Ukraine aid. A recent CBS/YouGov poll indicated that 68% of Republicans disapprove of continued military support for Ukraine. Greene's criticism, while unlikely to sway Washington's policy, underscores potential fractures within Trump's political coalition.
In addition to the weapons deal, Trump threatened to impose "secondary tariffs" on countries conducting business with Russia if a peace agreement is not reached within 50 days. These tariffs, clarified as secondary sanctions, aim to pressure Russia into negotiations.
What this might mean
The decision to arm Ukraine through NATO could have significant geopolitical implications. If European allies follow through with increased defense spending, it may strengthen NATO's collective security posture. However, the move risks deepening divisions within the Republican Party, particularly among isolationist factions.
Should the secondary sanctions be implemented, they could further strain US-Russia relations and complicate diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict. Experts suggest that Trump's strategy may hinge on leveraging economic pressure to expedite a peace deal, though the effectiveness of this approach remains uncertain. As the situation unfolds, the international community will be closely watching for any shifts in US foreign policy and their potential impact on global stability.
