The debate over whether the United States should provide Ukraine with long-range Tomahawk missiles has reached a new level of urgency, as top U.S. officials confirm that the Biden administration is actively weighing the request amid Russia’s continued refusal to engage in peace talks. The decision, which Vice President JD Vance has described as being under “serious consideration,” could dramatically alter the balance of power in the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia—and raise the stakes for all parties involved.
On September 28, 2025, Vice President Vance publicly acknowledged that Ukraine had officially asked the U.S. for Tomahawk missiles, a weapons system with a range of 2,500 kilometers (1,550 miles) that would enable Ukrainian forces to strike deep into Russian territory, including potentially as far as Moscow. According to Reuters, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has proposed that the U.S. sell the missiles to European allies, who could then transfer them to Ukraine. This workaround is seen as a way to potentially sidestep some of the diplomatic and political hurdles that a direct transfer might entail.
"You asked this question about Tomahawks. It's something the president is going to make the final determination on. What the president is going to do is what's in the best interest for the United States of America," Vice President Vance told Fox News on September 29, 2025. He added, "I know we're having conversations this very minute about the issue." The vice president’s remarks came just days after the United Nations General Assembly, where Zelensky reportedly pressed former President Donald Trump—who remains highly influential in the administration—for support on the missile deal.
Trump, for his part, has signaled openness to the idea. In a post on Truth Social following his meeting with Zelensky, Trump wrote, "Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and win all of Ukraine back in its original form." This public endorsement, coupled with ongoing discussions within the White House, suggests that the administration is seriously considering the transfer, though no final decision has yet been announced.
According to The Express, the issue of supplying Tomahawk missiles has gained urgency in light of Russia’s recent refusal to participate in peace talks brokered by the U.S. and its allies. Vice President Vance expressed clear frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s stance, stating, "What we've seen over the last couple of weeks, the Russians have refused to sit down with any bilateral meetings with the Ukrainians. They've refused to sit down with any trilateral meetings where the president or some other member of the administration could sit down with the Russians and the Ukrainians."
This diplomatic impasse has left the U.S. searching for new ways to support Ukraine’s defense while also increasing pressure on Russia to return to the negotiating table. Vance emphasized the administration’s desire for peace, but also acknowledged that the conflict has reached a stalemate. "The Russians are not gaining a lot. This war is terrible for their economy, and they have to ask themselves how many more people are they going to have to lose and how many more people are they going to have to kill for very little military advantage," he said, echoing Trump’s earlier remarks on the economic and human toll of the war for Russia.
The prospect of delivering Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine has sparked intense debate within the administration and among America’s European allies. The missiles’ long range would give Ukraine the unprecedented ability to strike strategic targets far beyond the front lines, potentially even threatening critical infrastructure deep inside Russia. Such a move, however, also carries significant risks. Many analysts warn that providing these advanced weapons could escalate the conflict, provoking a harsh response from Moscow and raising the specter of a broader regional or even global confrontation.
Despite these risks, the U.S. has already stepped up military aid to Ukraine in recent months. Trump has overseen a NATO-financed program to supply U.S. weapons to Ukraine under the so-called Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List program. Initial aid packages have included advanced Patriot air defense systems and HIMARS rocket systems, both of which have played a key role in helping Ukraine blunt Russian air and missile attacks. The addition of Tomahawk missiles would mark a significant escalation in the types of weaponry being provided, signaling a new phase in Western support for Ukraine’s military efforts.
President Zelensky’s request for Tomahawks comes at a time when Ukraine is seeking to regain momentum on the battlefield. While Russia’s invasion has largely stalled, with minimal territorial progress in recent months, Ukrainian forces have struggled to make major breakthroughs against deeply entrenched Russian positions. The ability to conduct long-range strikes could provide Ukraine with a much-needed strategic advantage, disrupting Russian supply lines and command centers far from the front.
Yet, as Vance and other officials have noted, the ultimate goal remains peace—not endless escalation. "We hope the Russians actually wake up to reality on the ground," Vance said. The White House, for its part, continues to urge Moscow to return to the negotiating table, even as it weighs new measures to strengthen Ukraine’s hand.
The European dimension of the proposed missile transfer is also significant. By involving European allies in the supply chain, the U.S. may be seeking to share both the risks and responsibilities of arming Ukraine with such powerful weapons. This approach could help maintain unity within NATO and the broader Western coalition, while also complicating Russia’s efforts to single out the U.S. for retaliation.
Ultimately, the decision on whether to provide Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine rests with President Trump. As Vice President Vance put it, "What the president is going to do is what's in the best interest for the United States of America." That calculus will likely weigh not only the immediate military benefits for Ukraine, but also the longer-term risks of escalation and the prospects for a negotiated settlement to the conflict.
For now, the world watches and waits. The outcome of this high-stakes deliberation could shape the future of the war in Ukraine—and the broader security architecture of Europe—for years to come.