“Beyond the Ballot” is a column presented and created by the PHHS Politics Club. This column will explore electoral information, congressional controversies, and senatorial stories! Stay tuned for biweekly updates from your brand-new news source.

The last few weeks have been some of the most eventful weeks in recent American political history, with a bevy of controversies and new stories popping up. President Trump has taken full advantage of his political power to accomplish as much as possible as quickly as possible. From issuing what seems like crazy statements about foreign policy to reaffirming his new social policy, it’s clear that he’s here to make a statement. 

The latest of this has been the Zelensky – Trump bilateral meeting on Feb. 28, where tensions flared up, and a discouraged Zelensky was forced to leave the White House early. While the entire affair has been lauded as bold and brave by supporters and incredibly disrespectful by detractors, it’s important to ignore the rhetoric and examine the underlying story behind the event. 

Recently, key European Union (EU) leaders like Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister of the UK, and Emmanuel Macron, the President of France, have discussed the EU’s future with Ukraine alongside the United States. In these discussions, these two leaders have been especially outspoken about their productive conversations and have expressed increasing hope for the future.

However, things changed drastically as the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, took the stage in the Oval Office for a televised meeting. From the get-go, he was antagonized as the President and Vice-President of the U.S. called for more “gratitude” from Zelensky regarding their support. 

Next, Trump, while faulting both sides for the war (Russia and Ukraine), received criticism from Zelensky that attempting a quick ceasefire deal may embolden Russia in the future and that the U.S. will “feel it in the future.”

While being a legitimate and common line of reasoning, this was considered offensive by the Americans. This anger grew when Zelensky made statements that seemed to indicate that Ukraine wanted even more American support, something that Trump has been against since his campaign- America First.

Ultimately, the meeting ended with Vance urging Zelensky to say thank you, a request that fell on deaf ears. He then was urged to leave, with only a heavy heart in tow. American support has been key to Ukraine’s prolonged survival thus far, and losing it could result in greater losses.

But what’s the real deal? Many antagonize Trump as unfeeling and disrespectful, and while certainly this was a theme throughout the meeting, it’s important to see whether or not this achieves the goals of Trumpian foreign policy.

Throughout his most recent campaign and even a little into his first term, he has expressed a concern for American entanglements with other countries, especially the strain on the taxpayer. As a populist candidate who appeals to the public using his economic jargon, this demonization of the Ukraine effort as stealing money from taxpayers is an effective political move. That aside, America’s intervention in Ukraine hasn’t gone unnoticed and has been significant when compared to other nations. 

The US Department of Defense official numbers show that as of Dec. 2024, about 180 billion dollars have been allocated to Ukraine aid (not all of it has been spent yet). This money, in Trump’s eyes, should either be reallocated to other programs or should be cut out to justify tax cuts. When Trump says numbers like “300 billion” spent on Ukraine, he is exaggerating, which often hides the truth behind what he is saying.

So, when he quipped that the US spends over 100 billion more dollars than Europe, he is, of course, incorrect, but it reveals that the U.S. makes up 42 percent of all aid to Ukraine. Europe as a whole only contributes 49 percent, which is, in reality, a small number when it comes to individual countries. Trump’s decrease in support in Ukraine may lead to greater urgency and advocacy from neighboring countries in Europe. 

Trumpian isolationism in America mainly means cutting costs where it isn’t necessary and creating peace where America is involved. For him, this has meant “peace through power,” a sort of lasting insurance for safety in hotspots like Taiwan and, of course, Ukraine.

The main problem that Trump sees in the status quo regarding Ukraine is the lack of a lasting peace plan that is reliant on the United States. Currently, Ukraine and Russia remain in a sort of deadlock, with the current situation not favoring one side by an outsized amount. Thus, with both sides fighting with a large portion of their resources, an off-ramp or, in general, a way out of the war hasn’t been created in any legitimate capacity.

Trump tells Zelensky to come back when he is “ready for peace,” meaning that the USA will only commit to aid when a sustainable plan is created. American dollars being exported to a war that may never end is not sustainable and goes against the values Trump holds.

BBRecapTM

For Trump’s goals of American isolationism, cutting aid for Ukraine is a part of his ultimate plan for peace, as he doesn’t want to keep spending taxpayer dollars into a war where no end is evident.  One negative consequence of this may be that a ceasefire might encourage Russia to take more action, as a ceasefire only helps the aggressor in this sort of one-sided battle. Yet, disentangling aid with Ukraine may also assist Europe in becoming a more autonomous body, not reliant on U.S. aid for all defense matters. 

Regardless of whether or not it is a good thing, this most recent story is proof that Trump is taking steps to ensure his plan comes to fruition and that Trumpian isolationism is one step closer to success. 

Sources:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2erwgwy8vgo 

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/02/g-s1-51585/uk-france-ukraine-ceasefire-plan