Probably. The US did freeze some. I don't know whether the thing is being collectively-handled or on a per-country basis.

kagis

It sounds like there is some level of collective-decision-making involving both, and that more of the funds are frozen by Europe than the US.

reads further

This talks about both that and reconstruction costs:

https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/how-frozen-russian-assets-could-pay-rebuilding-ukraine

A recent assessment from the European Commission, the Government of Ukraine, the World Bank, and the United Nations estimated that at the one-year mark of the invasion, rebuilding Ukraine would cost $411 billion, with aid coming in from both the public and private sectors. This is more than double the size of Ukraine’s pre-invasion economy. The government says it needs some $14 billion to fund critical infrastructure projects in this year alone.

So I'd guess that if anything, the number is higher now, if that represented damage at the one-year mark.

The governments of the United States, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the European Commission seized roughly $300 billion in Russian central bank assets not long after Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine last year, an extraordinary sum totaling about half of Russia’s foreign reserves at the time. Most of this money—more than $200 billion—is frozen in European accounts. These governments have also seized tens of billions of dollars in assets belonging to Russian oligarchs and private entities.

So at least two-thirds of it was frozen by European governments. If they take different routes, whatever the Europe does -- if it does one thing -- will probably be where the larger portion of the funds go.