Donald Trump has almost single-handedly held up additional American aid to Ukraine, allowing Russia to regain momentum in its offensive. (It’s almost as if denying Kyiv weapons does not bring about peace!)

One workaround gaining increasing traction in Washington is a plan to seize Russian assets in the United States and Europe, and use those to fund Ukrainian defense. There are technical arguments about the merits of this plan, but the real question is what Trump will say about it.

House Speaker Mike Johnson has floated the idea of seizing Russian assets to get around the need for congressional appropriation. Some critics warn that this maneuver would undermine the dollar as the world’s major reserve currency — why would global oligarchs park their lucre in the United States and Europe if they would be vulnerable to seizure if their regime launches a war or commits some other unusually large atrocity?

The Brookings Institution argues that a well-designed policy “can assure foreign central banks that their reserves will not be seized arbitrarily.” Michael R. Strain, director of economic policy studies at the center-right American Enterprise Institute, makes a similar case.

On the contrary side, Chris Caldwell argues that such a move would backfire on the financial system.

You will note that the disagreement on this question breaks down on similar lines as opinion about Russia and Vladimir Putin. Caldwell has praised Putin as “a symbol of national self-determination,” “a hero to populist conservatives around the world and anathema to progressives,” and — in my head, I always hear this line in the voice of Cameron Diaz and Matt Dillon in There’s Something About Mary, speaking simultaneously about Harold and Maude — “the pre-eminent statesman of our time.” So the fact Caldwell has developed strong beliefs about the technical merits of seizing assets from Putin’s oligarch network may not be entirely surprising.

But what about Trump? Since evidence first emerged in 2016 that Trump holds unusually friendly views about Vladimir Putin, and unusually hostile beliefs about the array of alliances Putin is trying to weaken, Americans have debated the nature of how and why he came to these beliefs.

Trump’s defenders insist he isn’t Russophile. He’s just a hard-headed America First populist who’s skeptical of wasting American blood and treasure for some romantic moral cause. He’s all about the money and self-interest, not some Russia dupe.

My argument, of course, is that Trump is a Russia dupe. He’s spouted Russian propaganda on a wide array of subjects, some of which have no connection whatsoever to American interests. Why is Trump claiming NATO membership forces the U.S. to back a war against Russia launched by Montenegro? Or that the Soviets were forced to invade Afghanistan in 1979 to defend themselves against terrorism?

Trump has not taken a position on seizing Russian assets, but the answer offers a useful test of the two competing theories. If Trump just cares about American self-interest, and opposes sending our money overseas, why wouldn’t he want to seize Russian assets? Sure, there are plausible objections about the long-term economic ramifications, but Trump is not, generally speaking, a long-term-ramifications guy.

The most Trumpian position would be to propose seizing Russian assets and keeping a cut for ourselves.

I don’t think Trump would say that. I think he’d dodge the question and avoid coming out in favor of something that would offend his Russian allies.

But it would be interesting if a reporter tried to get him on the record.