Trump claimed that Ukraine interfered in the American elections

For the first time in a long while, U.S. President Donald Trump has publicly made sharp accusations against the Ukrainian authorities.

He claimed that the United States had intercepted communications among members of Ukraine’s leadership discussing a scheme to redirect funds toward Joe Biden’s reelection.

Trump also reposted an article from Just the News claiming that U.S. intelligence had obtained information about such a scheme back in 2022, and that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has now ordered an investigation to establish all the circumstances.

Given that Trump’s fight against the Democratic Party remains one of his central themes, even against the backdrop of the war with Iran, such accusations sound especially severe. All the more so because the article is essentially about the possible misappropriation of American taxpayers’ money: funds intended for infrastructure projects may allegedly have been funneled, through various schemes, into financing the Democratic candidate’s election campaign.

The appearance of such a piece specifically in Just the News is not surprising in itself. The outlet was founded by the well-known pro-Trump journalist and publisher John Solomon.

At the same time, the main question remains unclear: is U.S. intelligence really investigating the alleged scheme, or is this merely a publication by the outlet itself, possibly not even coordinated with the White House? But even if the second version is true, Trump’s repost alone points to growing irritation in Washington toward the Ukrainian authorities, something that has been surfacing more and more often lately.

The reason for this, apparently, is that Kyiv is refusing to withdraw its troops from Donbas, thereby slowing the implementation of the plan to end the war in Ukraine that, according to these claims, Trump and Vladimir Putin agreed on in Anchorage.

The day before, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky himself said that it is the United States that is demanding a troop withdrawal and is only prepared to discuss security guarantees afterward. In this connection, the key question is whether Trump will move from political pressure to practical measures aimed at forcing Kyiv’s hand.

If the Just the News publication is based on real materials, investigating this scheme could become one of the tools of such pressure. Even without that, however, Washington has plenty of levers of influence — from cutting off intelligence sharing to completely halting weapons deliveries.

It is noteworthy that a number of pro-war Russian Telegram channels are already spreading the argument that the war and the negotiations surrounding Iran have supposedly shown that U.S. promises cannot be trusted, and that Moscow should therefore stop playing along with agreements with Trump and withdraw from the negotiation process.

However, the situation surrounding Ukraine is fundamentally different from the Iranian case. In the Ukrainian case, Trump is effectively acting as an ally of Russia, pushing Kyiv toward painful concessions. Moreover, if the peace plan is implemented, Moscow would receive its main benefits immediately and in practice: the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Donbas, the lifting of sanctions, and recognition of Russian jurisdiction over the captured territories. Ukraine, by contrast, would be forced to settle for U.S. promises — even if formalized in agreements — of security guarantees and investment.

More than that, agreements with the United States remain for Russia almost the only chance to achieve most of its war aims comparatively quickly. That is why any demonstrative withdrawal by Moscow from the talks would look pointless.

The other question is that the “Anchorage plan” can only be implemented if Trump exerts serious pressure on Kyiv. So far, that pressure has not been seen in full, and it is not certain that it will follow. But the likelihood remains high. Among other things, today’s Trump post about the alleged scheme to finance Biden’s campaign is being cited as evidence in favor of that view.