Congressman Michael Baumgartner (R-WA) has taken a contradictory stance on U.S. policy toward Ukraine. On one hand, he recently voiced strong support for Ukrainian refugees in Washington state, opposing the Trump administration’s potential revocation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for thousands of displaced Ukrainians. On the other hand, he has supported President Donald Trump’s decision to withhold congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine—a move that is a blatant violation of U.S. law.
On March 7, 2025, Baumgartner issued a statement urging the Trump administration to maintain TPS for over 240,000 Ukrainian refugees in the U.S., including many in his district in Eastern Washington. He acknowledged the devastation of Russia’s invasion and the critical need for America to provide sanctuary to those fleeing war.
Baumgartner’s statement highlighted that protecting Ukrainian refugees aligns with U.S. national security interests. His stance received praise from local leaders, including Ukraine’s honorary consul in Washington state, Valeriy Goloborodko, and Spokane pastor Boris Borisov, who represents the region’s large Slavic community.
Despite this humanitarian stance, Baumgartner has also aligned himself with Trump’s controversial policies toward Ukraine. He supported Trump’s recent move to block congressionally authorized military aid to Ukraine—a decision that appears to violate the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA). This law prevents the executive branch from unilaterally withholding funds that Congress has already approved.
Baumgartner has gone even further, calling for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s resignation following a diplomatic dispute with Trump. He accused Zelenskyy of reneging on an alleged agreement regarding security guarantees in exchange for Ukraine’s mineral wealth—an assertion that has sparked widespread controversy.
The Legal Problem: Impoundment Control Act Violations
Trump’s withholding of aid mirrors his 2019 freeze on Ukraine military assistance, which was ruled illegal by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Under the ICA, the president must either:
1. Request that Congress rescind the funds (which requires congressional approval within 45 days).
2. Temporarily defer funds for contingencies—but only for a limited time.
A permanent withholding of congressionally authorized funds without these legal justifications is unlawful. If Trump continues to block aid without following these procedures, he is violating federal law—and Baumgartner, by supporting him, is endorsing an illegal act.
Baumgartner’s stance reflects a deep contradiction. He argues that helping Ukrainian refugees is a moral and strategic imperative, yet he also backs Trump’s illegal withholding of aid—aid that directly helps Ukraine defend itself and prevent more Ukrainians from becoming refugees.
By supporting refugee protections but opposing military aid, Baumgartner is attempting to walk both sides of the issue. His position allows him to appear compassionate to his Ukrainian-American constituents while still aligning with Trump’s isolationist stance. But in reality, these positions are fundamentally at odds.
Ukrainian refugees and their supporters may begin to question Baumgartner’s sincerity. If he truly believes in supporting Ukrainians displaced by war, why would he back a policy that makes the war even harder for Ukraine to win?
Michael Baumgartner’s positions on Ukraine reveal a stark contradiction: supporting refugees while endorsing a policy that could create even more refugees. By backing Trump’s illegal withholding of aid, he is not just taking a controversial stance—he is supporting an unlawful act that undermines U.S. foreign policy and congressional authority.
Baumgartner may believe he can balance both sides of the issue, but as legal challenges mount and the war in Ukraine continues, his contradictions will only become more glaring. At some point, he—and the Trump administration—may have to answer for them.
