After Ukraine funding win, Biden shifts his messaging strategy

President Joe Biden scored a massive foreign policy win with the passage of a foreign aid bill last week that included $60 billion for Ukraine.

But now, having cleared that hurdle, his team is poised to make America’s ongoing commitment to the Ukraine war less of a public focus, as it addresses an electorate preoccupied with economic concerns.

The cause of democracy will remain a central component of Biden’s reelection campaign — as a unifying thread to discuss everything from Ukraine and Donald Trump to abortion, gun safety and education — so White House and campaign aides said they do not foresee a relentless public relations push to bolster support for the war in Ukraine in the months ahead.

Biden gave remarks after the aid bill passed and national security adviser Jake Sullivan went to the White House briefing room, too. But, one senior administration official added, “now that the supplemental passed Congress, it’s naturally less of a salient issue.”Yet failing to focus the country on why America’s continued backing of Ukraine matters — how it remains an existential concern for countries far beyond Eastern Europe — runs real risks, foreign policy experts warn. It could further erode domestic support for the war itself, all but close the door on any additional funding, and complicate a key component of Biden’s own presidential legacy: maintaining America’s longstanding role as the central pillar of the global democratic order.

“It’s important for the Biden administration not to cede public messaging on Ukraine to the people who are skeptical of U.S. support,” said Rachel Rizzo, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. “By not talking about it, he runs that risk, especially given that it’s already an election talking point for those who are anti-Ukraine aid.”

And yet, Democrats and committed transatlanticists who agree with Biden’s view largely believe the most important element for continued U.S. support for Ukraine and NATO is the president securing a second term. For them, emphasizing other issues of greater immediate concern for American voters makes sense.

“The issues that are most important for the world are not necessarily urgent matters for voters,” said Jennifer Palmieri, who served as communication director on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. “It's extraordinarily important that we got the Ukraine funding. But in terms of what people are concerned about in their everyday lives, it's not going to register.”

Publicly, Biden’s team insists that the debate isn’t an either-or; that the president can “navigate doing two things at once.”

“It's a stark contrast to Trump who couldn't manage the day job when he was in office and can't seem to WAKE UP to the fact that he's running on a deeply toxic agenda that will lose him the election again this November,” said Kevin Muñoz, a campaign spokesman.

But the reality of campaigns and presidencies is that time is a limited resource. Having portrayed the war as an existential moment that demands a massive, ongoing commitment from the West, the Pentagon and the American treasury, Biden will enter a stretch of the political calendar in which, allies argue, he would be better off discussing his work tackling junk fees and job creation. Ukraine plays a role, but it is mainly as a vehicle for attacking Trump.

“Usually foreign policy matters very little in an election, but it is essential that the Biden campaign and Democrats raise concerns about Trump's temperament and erratic behavior,” said Dan Pfeiffer, former senior adviser to President Barack Obama. In that vein, he added, “foreign policy crises and his tendency to bow down to dictators like Putin are good data points.”

When Biden himself has communicated about the Ukraine campaign, he often has chosen to use limited but dramatic strokes. That included in early March, when he opened his State of the Union address with a rousing call to pass Ukraine aid, urging Republicans to seize the Ronald Reagan legacy and act in defense of democratic principles abroad.

Going forward, it appears likely that the big stages are where Biden will return to war. The president is expected to travel to France in early June to mark the 80th anniversary of the D-Day invasion, where he is likely to commemorate the sacrifices of the “Greatest Generation” and draw parallels to the current response by Europe and the West to Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Another tentpole moment will come a month later at the NATO summit in Washington, D.C., which will mark the organization’s 75th anniversary, providing another opportunity to emphasize security issues and the cause of freedom for a domestic audience.

But even before those speeches take place, a shift in messaging has been detectable .

When the supplemental security bill stalled in Congress, Biden largely eschewed the bully pulpit to allow the lobbying for Ukraine aid to occur in private. White House aides white-knuckled through the final weeks of negotiation — its outcome in doubt until House Speaker Mike Johnson was swayed by intelligence, Ukrainian lobbying, his staff and his own convictions .

While the specifics of the aid are worth touting, Democrats also see the fact that legislation passed at all as a selling point for Biden.

“This is the first time in a long time a Democratic president can argue he’s gotten a lot done, and a lot of it was done with bipartisan support,” Palmieri said. “Not all of the benefits are hitting people in their everyday lives, but it's another proof point that democracy can work, Congress can function and that experienced people can solve problems.”

In recent campaign appearances, meanwhile, Biden has centered his speeches on economic issues. Major legislative achievements are often lumped together in support of a competency argument. With the Ukraine war, he has been keen to point out the positive impact of aid would have on jobs in the U.S. given how much of the funding goes to American weapons manufacturers.

Further tying himself to the war carries some political risks. The delays in sending U.S. assistance have already been costly, with Russia making recent advances and expected to make more gains in the coming weeks before the aid reaches the combat zone. And even if the tide does eventually turn, few expect it to happen in the months before November’s election.

Russia has captured or begun operations in multiple villages over the past week, leading Ukraine’s top military commander to warn about an increasingly dire battlefield situation.

“The situation at the front worsened,” Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi said in a Sunday statement on Telegram. “Trying to seize the strategic initiative and break through the front line, the enemy concentrated the main efforts in several directions, creating a significant advantage in forces and means.”

Even with the new military package, Ukraine will still fight an uphill battle with a significant weapons and manpower disadvantage. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy recently noted that Russia fires 10 artillery shells for every one shot by Kyiv’s forces. Russia has long signaled it will embark on a major offensive this spring, starting in May or June.

Still, Biden’s team believes it has weathered some of the more difficult political patches around the war effort. Recent polls reflect an uptick in support for Ukraine among Americans as the Russians have bombarded its cities with missiles and made slow, grinding progress on the battlefield. A Gallup poll released this month showed only 36 percent of Americans felt the U.S. had not given enough aid to Ukraine , up from 25 percent in October. Another 36 percent of respondents said the U.S. had given too much assistance to Kyiv while 26 percent said the amount was just right.

As for why that is the case, aides note that unlike other wars that have consumed presidents during election years, the one in Ukraine does not involve U.S. soldiers' boots on the ground, reducing the urgency of the day-to-day impact on Americans.

“It’s the president’s responsibility to make the case to the American people why Ukraine, and our support, matters. While he has done this a few times, the narrative has not been clear enough to most Americans,” said Alina Polyakova, president and CEO of the Center for European Policy Analysis.

Jennifer Haberkorn contributed reporting.