The Pentagon is poised to downgrade the office that has been central to shaping and executing U.S. military policy on Ukraine, a move that comes amid a sweeping reorganization of the Department of Defense’s policy apparatus. This potential reshuffle, confirmed by multiple former U.S. defense officials and European counterparts, would see the Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia Affairs office folded into the broader Europe and NATO office. While the operational work of the Ukraine hub is expected to continue, the change would reduce its bureaucratic prominence at a time when the war in Ukraine remains unresolved and Europe braces for a pivotal NATO summit.
The Office’s Role Since 2022
Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the once-obscure Pentagon office has become a linchpin in U.S. and allied military support for Kyiv. Under the leadership of former director Laura Cooper, the office convened the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, a coalition of 50 countries that has met 27 times to coordinate more than $130 billion in security assistance to Ukraine—about half of which came from the United States. The office’s responsibilities have included shaping policy, managing military aid logistics, and ensuring close transatlantic cooperation.
Laura Cooper’s departure in December left the office in the hands of an acting director, and the unit now reports to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, a position currently held by an acting official pending Senate confirmation for nominee Daniel Zimmerman. Despite its achievements, the office’s future status is now uncertain.
The Mechanics and Implications of the Downgrade
The planned reorganization would not involve layoffs or an immediate halt to ongoing operations. However, by merging the Ukraine-focused office into the larger Europe and NATO division, the Pentagon would effectively demote an entity that had, until recently, been one of its most influential policy hubs. The move is seen by some insiders as a routine bureaucratic adjustment, but by others as a clear signal of shifting priorities under the Trump administration.
A Defense Department spokesperson declined to confirm the potential change, explain its rationale, or specify whether any positions might be eliminated. Multiple sources stressed that the decision is not final and that any changes would be part of a broader, ongoing reorganization.
“It will be very hard for a single DASD to handle that many important [and] high maintenance countries,”
one former official told Defense News, expressing concern that the consolidation could overwhelm leadership at a time of heightened strategic uncertainty.
Strategic Rationale: Pivoting Away from Ukraine
The possible downgrade is widely interpreted as part of a broader recalibration of U.S. security policy. Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon’s current policy chief, has long advocated for reducing military support for Ukraine and shifting resources toward Asia to deter Chinese ambitions regarding Taiwan. This perspective aligns with the Trump administration’s calls for Europe to take on more responsibility for its own security.
During a February visit to NATO headquarters, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth articulated this shift in approach:
“Leaders of our European allies should take primary responsibility for defense of the continent,”
Hegseth said. The administration’s stance is that European countries must increase their defense spending and assume greater responsibility for Ukraine’s security as the U.S. pivots to other global priorities.
European Concerns and the NATO Summit
European officials have responded with apprehension, seeking urgent meetings with David Baker, the acting head of the Europe and NATO office, to understand the implications of the reshuffle and to prepare for the upcoming June NATO summit. The fear is that consolidating responsibilities into a single office could dilute focus on Ukraine at a critical juncture, just as the region faces mounting security threats and uncertainty over future U.S. support.
The Broader Reorganization and U.S. Workforce Cuts
This potential downgrade is part of a larger wave of organizational changes at the Pentagon. Earlier this year, the Department of Defense announced plans to cut 5,400 jobs as part of President Trump’s initiative to reduce the federal workforce. The Department of Education also saw significant budget reductions, signaling a government-wide push for leaner operations.
Impact on Ukraine Aid and U.S. Policy
Despite the ongoing intelligence sharing and previously scheduled aid deliveries, new U.S. funding for Ukraine has stalled in Congress. The Pentagon currently retains under $4 billion in authority to supply weapons to Kyiv but lacks funds to replenish its own stockpiles, raising concerns about the sustainability of continued support. The potential downgrade of the Ukraine hub comes at a moment when the U.S. is already signaling a reduced appetite for direct involvement in European security affairs.
Internal and External Reactions
While some insiders describe the reorganization as a standard bureaucratic maneuver, others see it as a strategic downgrade of Ukraine’s importance in U.S. defense policy. Several sources noted that such reshuffles are not uncommon when new policy chiefs take over, but the timing and context of this change have heightened anxieties among both U.S. officials and European allies.
The Future of U.S.-Ukraine Defense Relations
The fate of the Pentagon Ukraine hub remains undecided, but the direction of U.S. policy is clear: a gradual pivot away from direct management of Ukraine aid, with a greater expectation that European allies will fill the gap. As the U.S. recalibrates its global security commitments, the outcome of this policy office reshuffle will serve as a bellwether for the future of transatlantic defense cooperation and the West’s collective response to ongoing Russian aggression.
As one former official put it,
“The change may indicate a decrease in the priority of Ukraine for the Pentagon.”
The coming months—and the results of the June NATO summit—will determine whether this bureaucratic shift is merely a structural adjustment or a harbinger of a more profound transformation in U.S. defense strategy.
