Biden Urgently Needs a Leader for Ukraine Reconstruction

When the Truman administration announced the European Recovery Program—known as the Marshall Plan after its originator, then-U.S. Secretary of State George C. Marshall—in 1947, a majority of Americans had never heard of it. And those who had weren’t too enthusiastic about a U.S. commitment to rebuild a shattered post-World War II Europe and reintegrate it into the trans-Atlantic economy. To combat widespread skepticism, the Truman administration launched a national campaign to convince the American public of the program’s importance. Speaking tours were organized with civic and trade groups. By 1948, when the Marshall Plan was signed into law with bipartisan support, opinion polls had swung in its favor, with more than 56 percent of Americans viewing it favorably. Private-sector leaders, farmers’ associations, and local civic leaders backed it, realizing that Europe’s recovery would result in greater U.S. security abroad and prosperity at home.

To lead this endeavor, U.S. President Harry S. Truman turned to Paul Hoffman, the president of one of the country’s great manufacturing companies at the time, the Studebaker Corporation, to be the administrator of the Marshall Plan. With his extensive business experience, Hoffman pioneered the infusion of private-sector rigor into an international project for postwar recovery. Hoffman needed all his business acumen and credibility as he and other Marshall Plan officials faced withering congressional oversight of how funds were being used and if they met their goals and milestones.

The Biden administration should keep Hoffman’s critical efforts in mind as representatives from 60 countries gather on Wednesday and Thursday in London for the Ukraine Recovery Conference. There is an urgent need for another Hoffman—a highly capable and recognized American to oversee and coordinate all U.S. government assistance to Ukraine. This individual would be held accountable to the U.S. Congress and the American people for achieving the stated goals of Ukraine’s recovery and reconstruction, a modern Marshall Plan for Ukraine. This person also needs to make sure the American public is fully engaged in the conversation about assistance to Ukraine.

Unfortunately, no one in the Biden administration has been given responsibility for this remit. In 2022 alone, Congress has authorized more than $113 billion in military and economic support for Ukraine. With this substantial investment in Ukraine, it is unclear why the Biden administration has remained silent about what, if any, role the United States will play in Ukraine’s long-term economic recovery and reconstruction, which is essential for long-term Euro-Atlantic stability and will reduce the need for future Western support.

Some might argue that the United States, having concentrated on supporting Ukraine with military aid, should not also have a leadership role in recovery and reconstruction. Shouldn’t the Europeans, who aim to integrate postwar Ukraine economically and institutionally into the European Union, be responsible for reconstruction after Washington has done its part on the military side? These are understandable questions.

But why would the United States step aside now, after investing so much in Ukraine’s sovereignty and westward orientation? Why would the United States leave the economic benefits of reconstruction to the Europeans? Winning the war will be insufficient to reestablish security, which also requires economic recovery and deeper integration into Euro-Atlantic markets—the same logic that drove the original Marshall Plan. We know what success looks like: The 16 European Marshall Plan recipient countries are today among Washington’s closest allies and trading partners. The United States has benefited politically and economically.

Similar to the outcome of the original Marshall Plan, Ukraine’s reconstruction and economic reintegration will be one of the greatest returns on U.S. military aid to Ukraine. A strong U.S. role in reconstruction ensures that U.S. companies and know-how are an integral part of Ukraine’s recovery. Efforts such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Ukraine Business Initiative show that the U.S. private sector wants to be part of Ukraine’s long-term recovery. But the U.S. business community needs support, such as the provision of investment insurance, financing, and clarity about how confiscated Russian assets can be put to good use. The United States and other countries that have supported Ukraine could begin by establishing a risk-sharing trust fund to invest in Ukraine.

One of the reasons that the Biden administration is reluctant to lead a Marshall Plan for Ukraine is the United States’ polarized domestic debate. But rather than ceding ground to those who oppose further aid to Ukraine—including those who are openly cheering for Russia to win—policymakers should seek to shape the public debate on this issue at this critical moment. Why don’t members of Congress tell voters how rebuilding Ukraine will support U.S. companies and create jobs for Americans? U.S. financial companies, such as JPMorgan and BlackRock, have been selected by the Ukrainian government to advise on reconstruction. Philanthropists, church leaders, Rotarians, and countless other Americans are providing needed aid. Why isn’t the White House harnessing and focusing this extraordinary goodwill and opportunity?

A U.S. special envoy for Ukrainian reconstruction and recovery could initiate a nationwide campaign to begin a meaningful conversation with the American public about U.S. reconstruction assistance to Ukraine, including what is at stake and the benefits the United States can reap. Congress needs to be proactive and hold the special envoy accountable for setting and meeting stated economic goals and reconstruction objectives for a time-limited period while ensuring that all assistance efforts are designed with built-in transparency measures.

Of course, this is not just a project for Washington. A senior-level U.S. envoy is also needed to coordinate with partners providing reconstruction assistance to Ukraine. Several other G-7 countries already have dedicated envoys to oversee this task and to support their own private sectors’ activities in Ukraine, and these countries are moving ahead with their plans. The United States is not. Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economics Mike Pyle, as Washington’s representative to the G-7 donor coordination platform, has too many other responsibilities to fully dedicate himself to those of a special envoy.

Ensuring that the Ukrainians can restore their territorial integrity and sovereignty will strengthen the international system. As Ukraine liberates its territories, Washington and its allies should fully support Kyiv’s efforts to rebuild, modernize, and more closely integrate into Euro-Atlantic markets. If the joint West does not take on this role, adversaries like China will gladly use the opportunity to increase their economic and geopolitical influence.

George Marshall posed three questions to Americans when announcing the Marshall Plan: What is needed? What can best be done? What must be done? These same questions need to be answered for Ukraine today, with a fourth question added: Who will lead it?