The BBC:s most recent rundown[1] has the strictly military support from the US accounting for a bit more than half of the total of the top-ten contributors (of which it is number one, of course).
When comparing dollar values for military equipment with other types of support, we should keep in mind that they are inflated. A lot of the equipment (ammunition, vehicles etc) are old things that were due to be rotated out of the stockpiles anyway. This is true for many (perhaps all) donor countries.
Example: GMLRS rockets have a shelf-life of 10-15 years and their disposal costs at end-of-life is not zero. Sending them off to Ukraine as they approach their best-before date does not incur much real cost on the donor, but the gift can be labeled as "253 gazillion dollars worth of ammunition." The value description is sort of true, as they will be used in their full capacity by Ukraine, but it might even save money for the donor who is the off the hook for disposal and was going to replace them anyway.
It's very simple to claim "we have given the most in military aid, in $" but much harder to look into it.
Then you find out that everything is priced insanely high, bullets and artillery that is identical to European (due to nato standards) can cost dozens of times more.
Then you find out that billions have been spent in private "consultancies" (I guess US military and navies have no clue how to organize logistical transports, even though we're talking about the biggest naval power on the planet).
Then you find out that Ukraine offered to come pick the weapons itself with their own ships to make it faster and save US taxpayers money and US said nope, we got people to feed with those contracts.
"War effort" implies military aid, in which case the US has supplied nearly double all other countries combined.