I recently used the app Five Calls to contact Sheri Biggs and urge her to oppose the executive order on military aid to Ukraine. As an ally of Ukraine, the U.S. should not support actions that undermine our values and commitments.

There are many reasons to oppose this order, but a key concern is Trump’s suspicious pro-Putin stance, which directly contradicts America’s strategic interests. Using Five Calls made it easy to take action, and I want to share my experience with you.

Below is my response and thoughts on the conversation.

Debunking Sherri Biggs’ Response on Ukraine

Sheri Biggs responded to concerns about Ukraine with a statement that, while politically crafted, contains so many flaws, contradictions, and omissions.

Ignoring U.S. Commitments

One of the biggest omissions in Biggs’ response is the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. Under this agreement, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for security assurances from the United States, the UK, and Russia.

By suggesting that supporting Ukraine is merely an optional burden, Biggs disregards U.S. credibility in global security agreements. If the U.S. abandons Ukraine now, why would any other country trust future American security guarantees? This weakens nonproliferation efforts, making future nuclear disarmament agreements much harder to achieve.

Flaw: The U.S. made a formal commitment to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty. Ignoring it damages U.S. credibility on the global stage.

European Defense Spending and U.S. Obligations

Biggs claims that wealthy European nations have not “stepped up” enough, yet also argues that the U.S. cannot handle multiple global threats. This is misleading:

Many European countries have significantly increased their defense spending.
Germany, Poland, and others have contributed billions to Ukraine.
The UK and France have expanded their military commitments.

If these allies are already increasing their spending, then why is the U.S. reducing its support? Biggs’ argument contradicts itself: either Europe is failing to step up (which is incorrect) or the U.S. is making a strategic mistake by disengaging.

Flaw: Europe is stepping up, yet Biggs still uses this as an excuse to reduce U.S. involvement.

Contradictory Stance on Defense Spending

Biggs argues that the U.S. cannot handle multiple global threats without substantial increases in defense spending. Yet, in the next breath, she says that cutting defense spending is necessary.

If China is the main concern, wouldn’t strengthening alliances (including Ukraine) be a key strategy?
The U.S. has historically spent on defense to prevent larger conflicts (e.g., WWII, the Cold War).
Ukraine’s fight weakens Russia without U.S. troops being deployed, which is a cost-effective strategy.

Biggs presents two opposing arguments at the same time: that the world is more dangerous but that we should spend less on countering these dangers.

Flaw: She recognizes growing threats but argues against sustaining military deterrence.

Omission Benefits of Supporting Ukraine

The response frames Ukraine aid as a waste of taxpayer money, but fails to mention the strategic and economic benefits:

Weakens Russia without U.S. troop involvement.
Strengthens NATO and U.S. alliances, ensuring future security cooperation.
Stabilizes global markets, preventing economic ripple effects.

If the U.S. abandons Ukraine, Russia is emboldened to expand further, leading to a larger, more expensive conflict later (e.g., against NATO allies).

Flaw: The cost of inaction could be far greater than the cost of supporting Ukraine now.

Misrepresentation of Biden

Biggs blames President Biden for global instability, but her reasoning is flawed:

Crimea was invaded in 2014 (under Obama), proving Russian aggression was not caused by Biden.
The Colonial Pipeline attack was carried out by a cybercriminal group, not the Russian government.
Trump weakened NATO by threatening to leave and downplaying Russian threats, despite Congress supporting Ukraine.

Biggs cherry-picks foreign policy events while ignoring Trump’s own failures and downplaying Russia’s long-term aggression.

Flaw: The argument distorts history to blame Biden while ignoring broader geopolitical trends.

Ukraine and China

Biggs treats Ukraine and China as separate issues, but they are deeply connected:

If the U.S. fails to deter Russia, China sees weakness and is more likely to invade Taiwan.
A strong U.S. response in Ukraine deters China by proving that America stands by its allies.

By pulling support from Ukraine, the U.S. would be signaling to China that it won’t protect its allies, making war in the Pacific more likely.

Flaw: Weakness in Ukraine emboldens China, contradicting Biggs’ claim that we need to focus on Asia.

Oversimplification

Biggs argues that the U.S. cannot afford Ukraine aid due to national debt, but this ignores key realities:

Military spending is an investment in long-term security.
The U.S. ran deficits while engaging in WWII, the Cold War, and post-9/11 security efforts—and still maintained economic growth.
Aid to Ukraine is a fraction of the defense budget but delivers massive strategic benefits.

If the U.S. is worried about debt, cutting aid to Ukraine isn’t the solution—reforming tax policy and discretionary spending would have a far greater impact.

Flaw: National debt concerns don’t justify abandoning global security commitments.

Conclusion

Biggs’ response ignores U.S. commitments, misrepresents global dynamics, contradicts itself on defense spending, and downplays the strategic consequences of abandoning Ukraine.

Supporting Ukraine is not just about Ukraine—it’s about U.S. credibility, global stability, and deterring larger wars. The real cost isn’t spending taxpayer money now, but the future conflicts and economic instability that would result from inaction.

If the U.S. wants to remain a global leader, it must honor its commitments, invest in strategic security, and recognize that weakness in Ukraine strengthens America’s adversaries.

Sheri Biggs Canned Response on Ukraine