Pentagon’s New Policy May Redirect Billions of Weapons to US Stockpiles

A recent memo from the Pentagon’s policy chief introduces a significant shift in U.S. military strategy. This policy allows the Defense Department to divert certain weapons and equipment intended for Ukraine back into U.S. stockpiles, according to multiple sources familiar with the document. This change could potentially redirect billions of dollars from Ukraine, a country currently engaged in conflict, back to replenishing American military resources.

The memo, authored by Elbridge Colby, the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, raises concerns about the future of U.S. arms shipments to Ukraine. As President Donald Trump prepares for a potential meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, uncertainty surrounding U.S. military support for Ukraine intensifies. The policy comes at a time when the Pentagon is already grappling with the implications of providing arms to Ukraine while maintaining sufficient domestic stockpiles.

Last month, Pete Hegseth, the acting Defense Secretary, halted a significant shipment of weapons to Ukraine in accordance with Colby’s memo. Although Trump later reversed this pause and committed to continuing support for Ukraine, the new policy remains in effect. Critics argue that this change undermines the intent of the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), a program established by Congress to ensure a steady supply of weapons for Ukraine, funded by U.S. taxpayer dollars.

The USAI, initiated in 2016, has traditionally enabled the Pentagon to procure arms directly from U.S. manufacturers for Ukraine. Recently, the Senate allocated an additional $800 million to the program as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. Yet, it remains uncertain whether these funds will be used to supply Ukraine under the new policy.

Sources indicate that weapons have not yet been diverted, but the memo contains provisions that permit such actions, potentially depriving Ukraine of critical military resources. The Pentagon has previously maintained that redirecting USAI-funded weapons back into U.S. stockpiles would violate the Impoundment Control Act, which mandates that the President must notify Congress of any delays or withholding of funds.

As the new policy unfolds, it has already encountered pushback in the Senate. Recent proposals attached to the NDAA for 2026 stipulate that weapons can only be reabsorbed by the Pentagon if they have not yet been transferred to Ukraine and are no longer necessary for ongoing support activities.

In addition to these policy changes, the Trump administration has sought to shift more responsibility for arming Ukraine onto European allies and NATO. Colby has expressed a desire to preserve U.S. stockpiles in anticipation of potential conflicts elsewhere, particularly regarding China.

Currently, the Pentagon retains nearly $4 billion in funding authority to send weapons directly from U.S. stockpiles to Ukraine. Some NATO allies, including the UK, have encouraged the U.S. to utilize this funding to increase pressure on Russia, with proposals to reimburse the U.S. for costs incurred.

Under the Colby memo, the Pentagon has categorized its stockpiles into “red,” “yellow,” and “green” categories, with the red and yellow categories indicating items deemed in short supply. Weapons such as interceptor missiles for Patriot air defense systems fall into this category and require explicit approval from Hegseth prior to their transfer.

Despite ongoing discussions and adjustments to U.S. military support, Ukrainian officials have expressed skepticism regarding U.S. concerns about diminishing stockpiles. The Biden administration has often cited these concerns as a reason for withholding certain sophisticated military equipment, including air defense systems that have become increasingly vital as Russia intensifies its attacks.

In a separate initiative, the Pentagon is collaborating with NATO to establish a system for selling weapons to European allies for eventual transfer to Ukraine. This proposed mechanism could create a NATO fund wherein allied nations can contribute financially to purchase arms from the U.S.

Trump referenced this arrangement in discussions with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, indicating that European partners would fund the acquisition of U.S. manufactured weapons. Under this system, Ukraine would submit a list of required military equipment directly to NATO, which would then assess the availability of U.S. stockpiles for potential sales.

As NATO allies aim to establish a funding baseline of $10 billion for this initiative, more immediate needs may prompt some European countries to supply arms directly to Ukraine, awaiting reimbursement from the U.S. For instance, a recent agreement with Germany allows the nation to provide two U.S.-made Patriot systems to Ukraine while ordering replacements from the U.S. production line.

While the Pentagon’s policy may not deter European allies from pursuing the NATO mechanism, it raises concerns about the potential for delays in military support to Ukraine. The future of U.S. assistance will likely hinge on ongoing discussions and the evolving geopolitical landscape.