President Trump’s shift toward Russia marks a significant departure from traditional American foreign policy and defies congressional Republicans who historically advocated a strong stance against Moscow. Despite some discontent within the party regarding Trump’s approach, responses have been largely subdued, with GOP leaders avoiding direct criticism. Senator John Thune emphasized the need to give Trump space, while others, like Senator Roger Wicker, expressed disagreement yet refrained from confronting the president. Trump has accused Ukraine of causing the war and labeled President Zelensky as a dictator. Many Republicans, once supportive of aid to Ukraine, now align with Trump’s foreign policy direction, diluting their previous hawkish positions.
As President Trump makes a sudden shift towards Russia, disrupting decades of American foreign policy, he is also challenging members of his own party in Congress, many of whom have dedicated their careers to advocating a vigorous stance against Moscow and providing robust support to European allies facing its most pressing dangers.
However, the response from Republicans on Capitol Hill has been subdued, in some cases bordering on silence. There has been minimal G.O.P. resistance to Mr. Trump’s attempts to foster closer ties with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia or to blame Ukraine as he strives for a swift resolution to the conflict that erupted when Russia invaded the country.
While some Republicans have voiced their concerns about Mr. Trump’s actions and remarks, there has been no unified effort from G.O.P. leaders or senators who hold key positions in overseeing military and foreign policy to challenge him.
“At this point, it’s important to give him some leeway,” Senator John Thune, the South Dakota Republican and majority leader, stated at a news conference on Capitol Hill on Wednesday following a closed-door Senate lunch with Vice President JD Vance.
The weekly meeting often allows senators the chance to resolve internal disagreements. A few senators indicated a desire to use part of the time to question Mr. Vance about Mr. Trump’s apparent readiness to abandon American allies, draw closer to Mr. Putin, and label President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine a “dictator.”
However, when the moment arrived, the subject did not come up, according to several attendees.
“What I advocate for is a peaceful resolution in Ukraine,” Mr. Thune told reporters following the meeting, “and I believe presently the administration, the president, and his team are working to achieve that.” Regarding Mr. Trump’s description of Mr. Zelensky as a dictator, he merely responded: “The president speaks for himself.”
Mr. Thune was one of many Republican senators who had spent the last three years supporting legislation to allocate tens of billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine for its war efforts. Now, with Mr. Trump in the White House, they are putting up little resistance as he turns against Kyiv.
Even Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the former party leader who sought to position himself as a prominent Republican advocate for Ukraine and a counterbalance to Mr. Trump’s “America First” foreign policy, has remained publicly quiet in response to the president’s shift towards Russia.
This is a remarkable shift for Republicans, who have long identified themselves as the party of a strong defense and contended that the United States has a crucial role to play as a symbol of freedom and a defender of democracies worldwide.
Some G.O.P. lawmakers have made it clear they disagree with Mr. Trump’s stance, but most have done so cautiously, avoiding direct criticism of the president. Senator Roger Wicker, Republican from Mississippi and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he opposed the idea of a face-to-face meeting with Mr. Putin.
“If he sought my advice, I would recommend not granting Vladimir Putin the opportunity to meet with a democratically elected leader,” said Mr. Wicker, categorizing the Russian leader as “an international scofflaw and a war criminal of the highest order.”
Nonetheless, despite leading the Senate committee overseeing national security, Mr. Wicker affirmed that Mr. Trump has not sought his counsel.
A year ago, nearly two dozen Republican senators defied Mr. Trump’s wishes and voted in favor of maintaining the flow of tens of billions of dollars in military and other assistance to Ukraine to resist Russia. Few of those lawmakers have spoken out against his current position, and those who have largely directed their criticisms at Mr. Putin — not Mr. Trump.
“It seems that’s the direction they are pursuing,” Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican from Alaska, mentioned regarding the Trump administration’s initiative to reestablish diplomatic relations with Russia.
Ms. Murkowski, seemingly cautious to avoid directly opposing Mr. Trump, expressed hope that the country would not “overlook the fact that Russia, under Putin, blatantly and disregarding lives or borders invaded Ukraine.”
“We must proceed with great caution,” she concluded.
In recent days, Mr. Trump has asserted that Ukraine is to blame for the war’s onset, stating to reporters from his Mar-a-Lago estate that Ukrainian officials “could have negotiated a deal.” On Wednesday, he intensified his criticism, branding Mr. Zelensky a “dictator without elections.”
Senator Thom Tillis, Republican from North Carolina, who recently returned from a visit to Kyiv where he and two other senators reiterated their backing for Ukraine, balked at the term “dictator.”
“It’s not a description I would choose,” he told reporters on Wednesday.
“There is no moral comparison between Vladimir Putin and President Zelensky,” Mr. Tillis commented regarding Mr. Trump’s remarks on his social media platform.
Yet Mr. Tillis, who once considered but later backed away from confronting Mr. Trump over his defense secretary, was also careful to refrain from directly criticizing the president’s stance. Mr. Tillis expressed his belief that Mr. Trump would ultimately heed his advisors and recognize the unease among Republicans on Capitol Hill, who may be privately urging him to steer clear of appeasing Mr. Putin.
When asked if she supported the possibility of Mr. Trump meeting with the Russian president in person, Senator Joni Ernst, Republican from Iowa, simply shrugged.
Last year, Ms. Ernst was among the Republicans who voted to send billions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine. At that time, she stated her support was aimed at demonstrating American strength on the global stage, something she believed President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was failing to do.
“By strengthening and equipping the United States to counter our adversaries’ aggression, Congress has taken action where this president has not,” Ms. Ernst declared in a statement then.
Now that Mr. Trump is the president, many Republicans have abandoned their previously hawkish stances on Russia and Mr. Putin to back Mr. Trump’s efforts to conclude the war.
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican from South Carolina, who formerly referred to Mr. Putin as a “thug” and a war criminal, asserting he “needs to be dealt with,” has significantly altered his position after Mr. Trump announced that Mr. Putin had invited him to Moscow.
“I don’t care if they meet Putin in Cleveland,” he said recently about the plans for high-level discussions between the White House and the Kremlin. “I don’t care if they talk, I don’t care if they take a vacation. It doesn’t concern me what you do as long as you get it right.”
On Wednesday, Mr. Graham posted on social media that Mr. Trump “is Ukraine’s best chance to conclude this war honorably and fairly,” adding that he believes the president “will succeed and will achieve this goal in the Trump manner.”