The Pentagon has given internal approval to provide Ukraine with long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles after an assessment concluded the transfer would not harm U.S. stockpiles, three U.S. and European officials familiar with the matter told CNN. That recommendation, delivered to the White House by the Joint Chiefs of Staff earlier this month, now rests with President Donald Trump, whose decision could reshape the military and diplomatic contours of the Ukraine war.

The deliberations occurred just before Mr. Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who has urged Washington to supply weapons that could strike oil and energy facilities deep inside Russia. For Kyiv, long-range precision munitions represent a means of degrading Moscow’s ability to sustain military operations and potentially to impose costs on infrastructure that supports the war effort. For the United States and its allies, the calculus is complicated by the risk that such strikes would escalate tensions beyond the battlefield, particularly amid heightened rhetoric about nuclear capability.

The recommendation from U.S. military leaders underscores the technical and logistical considerations that have guided U.S. policy: officials determined that transferring a limited number of Tomahawks would not imperil American readiness or inventory levels. But the assessment leaves intact broader political and strategic questions about escalation, alliance cohesion and the legal and humanitarian consequences of targeting energy infrastructure.

Legal scholars and diplomats note that strikes on oil and energy facilities raise complex issues under the laws of armed conflict. Civilian infrastructure loses protection if it makes an effective contribution to military action and if its destruction offers a definite military advantage, but targeting decisions must still observe proportionality to minimize harm to civilians. The prospect of attacks on widely used energy facilities also carries implications for global markets and for countries that depend on Russian energy, including vulnerable economies in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and parts of Africa.

Moscow is likely to view provision of Tomahawks as a significant escalation, potentially prompting retaliatory measures that could range from stepped-up strikes in Ukraine to political and economic responses targeting Western countries. The transfer decision will therefore test transatlantic unity: European capitals have been wary of moves that risk direct confrontation between NATO members and Russia, even as many governments continue to support Kyiv with defensive and non-lethal supplies.

Domestically, the choice now sits with a president whose foreign policy approach has at times diverged from traditional Republican and allied positions, introducing an element of political calculation into a decision with far-reaching security consequences. The optics of transferring long-range offensive capability in an election year also raise questions about Washington’s long-term strategic objectives in Ukraine and the potential for unintended regional spillovers.

As the White House weighs the recommendation, governments and international institutions will be watching for signs of how Washington intends to balance Kyiv’s operational demands with the broader imperative to prevent wider escalation, maintain alliance cohesion and protect civilian populations across a conflict that has already reverberated around the globe.