“We’re going to send some more weapons….We have to,” President Donald Trump told reporters on Tuesday, bringing a temporary end to a confusing week of debate about the status of US military aid to Ukraine. Paused as part of a review of US munitions stockpiles amid concerns about military readiness, American security assistance bound for Ukraine now seems set to resume, though it is unclear how much.

Left unanswered, however, is what really remains in US arsenals after 40 months of providing weapons to Ukraine, while also supporting Israel in its long-running regional wars. And while actual numbers are classified, the truth is unlikely to be pretty. By allowing military aid to Ukraine to resume, even in reduced quantities, Trump is making the same mistake as his predecessors: assuming America can do everything, everywhere, all at once. Trump will soon be forced to make the choice he seems determined to put off: continue aid to Ukraine or ensure the US military is ready to defend the country’s vital interests.

American aid to Ukraine and Israel, along with the military’s own extensive operations in the Middle East over the past two years, have severely depleted US stockpiles of critical munitions. Since 2022, Washington has given over half of its Stinger missiles to Ukraine, along with hundreds of Patriot air defense interceptors, thousands of artillery rockets, and millions of rounds of ammunition. At the same time, Washington has been resourcing Israel’s wars in Gaza and Lebanon with Hellfire missiles, anti-tank weapons, and other expensive weaponry. It has also expended large numbers of precision munitions in its campaigns against the Houthis. Most recently, the US military burned still more air defense interceptors supporting Israel in its conflict with Iran.

The consequences of US military largesse are becoming starkly apparent. Reports suggest, for example, that the Pentagon has just 25% of the Patriot missiles it would need to meet the requirements of its war plans. With a yearly production of only about 600 missiles, it will be some time before this missile gap is closed. Other munitions face similar shortages and long replacement timelines. The US makes only about 60 Stinger missiles per month, for instance, meaning it will take five years to backfill the 3,000 provided to Ukraine. US stockpiles of 155mm artillery ammunition and its stores of artillery rockets known as GMLRS are also dwindling.

Critical munitions shortages create challenges for US defense officials. First, they limit the flexibility and responsiveness of US military commanders in the face of emerging crises. If military officers are uncertain about the sufficiency of the resources on hand, they may be overly cautious in their decision-making, compromising American interests. Second, shortfalls raise doubts about the military’s ability to protect its own personnel. Just last month in the Middle East, the US military relied on Patriot missiles to defend its soldiers at Al-Udeid airbase from Iranian retaliation. Had these interceptors not been available, US lives might have been lost.

Finally, deficiencies in the US military arsenal force the Pentagon to assume significant risk when it comes to executing priority missions, including operations overseas and defense of the homeland. If a crisis occurred in Asia this year, would the US military have the weapons needed to respond effectively? The answer is increasingly unclear. Thankfully, a near-term conflict between the US and China remains unlikely. But as Washington depletes its arsenal in wars with little bearing on core American interests, the risk grows that the United States could find itself unprepared to defend those interests when it truly matters — in Asia or beyond.

The Biden administration irresponsibly shrugged off warnings about tradeoffs and resource constraints, hoping that the era of US global primacy would return. Trump, so far, has tried to do the same. He will not have that luxury much longer. In the near future, the President and his advisors will face a decision: send still more weaponry to Ukraine, drawing further on military cupboards that are already increasingly bare, or husband US military resources to guarantee that US servicemembers are well-protected and equipped to defend core American interests.

The answer should be obvious. When it comes to handing out American weapons, Trump must put American soldiers at the front of the queue.

---

Jennifer Kavanagh is a senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities.

jekavanagh

---