-(4)-1731951738-q80.webp){kind=small}
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) expressed concern over what she described as contradictory statements from the Trump administration regarding Ukraine.
Speaking in an interview on CBS News’s Face the Nation on Sunday, Shaheen argued that recent remarks from senior officials send conflicting signals about U.S. policy toward the ongoing war.
“Well, I think it was a mixed [message] coming from the administration,” Shaheen told host Margaret Brennan.
“On the one hand, you heard Secretary Hegseth saying they were gonna take NATO off the table, that Ukraine needed to give up territory, and on the other hand, you had Vice President Vance saying that everything should be on the table, including the possibility of putting boots on the ground in Ukraine. So, it’s a mixed message.”
Her comments reflect broader concerns in Washington regarding how the Trump administration plans to navigate the Ukraine conflict, as President Trump has pushed for a negotiated settlement with Russia.
On Wednesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth addressed the Ukraine Contact Defense Group and stated that he does “not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement.”
His remarks align with the administration’s recent diplomatic efforts aimed at bringing an end to the war. Additionally, Hegseth indicated that Ukraine will likely not recover all of its lost territory from Russia, a statement that many in Congress see as a concession to Moscow.
Vice President J.D. Vance has offered a different perspective, suggesting that military intervention remains an option to pressure Russian President Vladimir Putin into adhering to any ceasefire agreement. When asked by The Wall Street Journal about possible measures to enforce an agreement, Vance acknowledged that a range of economic and military tools could be considered.
“There are instruments of pressure, absolutely,” Vance said. “And again, if you look at President Trump’s approach to this, the range of options is extremely broad. And there are economic tools of leverage. There [are], of course, military tools of leverage.”
“There’s a whole host of things that we could do,” he continued. “But fundamentally, I think the president wants to have a productive negotiation, both with Putin and with [Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky].”
Vance also emphasized Trump’s opposition to Ukraine joining NATO, a position the former president has consistently held.
“The president has been very clear that he doesn’t like the idea of moving Ukraine into NATO,” Vance said. “I also think the president is very clear that whenever he walks in a negotiation, everything is on the table.”
The conflicting rhetoric from Hegseth and Vance underscores the broader challenge the administration faces as it attempts to broker a settlement while balancing support from Congress and U.S. allies.
Trump has long criticized America’s financial and military assistance to Ukraine, arguing that European countries should take on a greater share of the burden. His administration’s latest diplomatic push reflects that stance, even as lawmakers from both parties continue advocating for strong U.S. support for Kyiv.
Shaheen pointed out that Congress remains committed to assisting Ukraine in its defense against Russian aggression.
“There is strong bipartisan support in Congress to help Ukraine in this unfair war that Russia has initiated,” she said.
Her remarks highlight the growing divide between Trump’s administration, which is pushing for a swift resolution that may involve territorial concessions, and members of Congress who remain steadfast in backing Ukraine’s sovereignty.
The Biden administration previously supported Ukraine’s efforts to fully reclaim occupied territories and advocated for its eventual NATO membership. The shift in tone under Trump has raised concerns among U.S. allies in Europe, who worry that any concessions to Russia could embolden further aggression.
Despite internal disagreements, the Trump administration insists it is committed to ending the war in a way that prioritizes U.S. interests. Trump has claimed he could secure a deal quickly if given the opportunity, though details of his plan remain unclear.
The mixed messaging from top officials, however, leaves key questions unanswered. If Ukraine’s NATO membership is no longer under consideration, and if the U.S. is open to some level of territorial compromise, what leverage remains to push Russia into a lasting peace?
And how would U.S. lawmakers, particularly those who have backed strong military aid to Ukraine, react to such a shift in strategy?
As negotiations continue, the Trump administration will need to clarify its position to avoid sending conflicting signals to allies, adversaries, and the American public.
With Congress remaining firm in its support for Ukraine, and the administration advocating for a settlement, tensions over the U.S. role in the conflict are likely to persist.
