Follow us on social

Zelensky faces chilly GOP reception in Washington

Zelensky faces chilly GOP reception in Washington

What a difference 10 months and a grinding war make, as Republicans vow no more 'blank checks' for Ukraine

Reporting | Washington Politics

When Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addressed a joint session of Congress last December, Republicans were a critical node in continued U.S. support for his country’s fight against the Russian invasion.

“Zelensky’s speech found a sympathetic ear among members of Congress, who frequently rose to their feet in standing ovations throughout his address,” wrote Responsible Statecraft’s Connor Echols at the time.

Zelensky returns to a vastly changed landscape in Washington Thursday, as a growing number of GOP lawmakers have expressed their reluctance — or outright opposition — to continued funding for Ukraine. “It’s not just far-right members,” a House Republican aide granted anonymity to speak freely told POLITCO. “(Mainstream Republicans are) sympathetic to the cause but we’re throwing money at a conflict that can last for years.”

This may be the reason why Zelensky will be meeting behind closed doors with selected bipartisan members of Congress — including House Speaker Kevin McCarthy — and the White House, and not making another televised address to both chambers.

Congress is currently weighing President Joe Biden’s $24 billion aid request for Ukraine, part of a larger battle over funding the U.S. government for the next fiscal year, which begins October 1.

As the New York Times’ Andrew Kramer put it: the last time Zelensky was in the nation’s capital, he was given a “hero’s welcome.” This time around, he added, the Ukrainian president is on a “more delicate political mission,” both because of a slow-moving counteroffensive in Ukraine, and domestic politics in Washington.

McCarthy, whose position on funding Ukraine has been mixed since he assumed the speakership in January, told reporters that he had some questions to ask the Ukrainian President when they meet. "Where’s the accountability on the money we’ve already spent? What is the plan for victory? I think that’s what the American public wants to know," he said. The Speaker would not commit to whether or not he would support another tranche of aid.

Other members of his caucus have been more direct. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) — a rare member of the party’s far right flank who has been a consistent ally of McCarthy in a number of disputes over the past year — is opposing his efforts to broker a short-term spending deal between the party’s warring factions because she refuses to vote “to fund a single penny to the war in Ukraine.”

Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) told reporters on Wednesday that his message to Zelensky is that there is “no money in the House, right now for Ukraine,” and that “it was not a good time for (Zelensky) to be here quite frankly.” Other reactions have said that they will oppose aid unless the Biden administration provides a clear strategy and mission for the war.

These reactions are indicative of a larger movement in the GOP against supporting additional, unconditional aid. The party has been “trending that way since last summer and has accelerated in the last month or so,” according to Dan Caldwell, Vice President of the conservative Center for Renewing America.

The increased opposition to aid reflects shifts in Republican public opinion outside of the Beltway. A CNN poll from last month showed 71 percent of Republicans believed that Congress should not authorize new funding.

However, while some of the loudest voices in the House are speaking out against more aid, advocates of continuing support are trying to paint a more nuanced picture. The group Defending Democracy Together, which is led by neoconservatives Sarah Longwell, Bill Kristol, and others, and which has launched an effort aimed at putting pressure on Republicans to support Ukraine, released a report card on House GOP members in advance of Zelensky’s visit. Judging by votes on five pieces of legislation along with its own analysis of their past statements, the group gave out 82 As, 43 Bs, 8 Cs, 17 Ds and 72 Fs.

On the other side of the Capitol, Senate Republicans have been more steadfast in their backing of Kyiv. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has endorsed the White House’s proposal. On Tuesday, during remarks about the looming government shutdown, McConnell added that he was “looking forward to seeing President Zelensky on Thursday,” and that it was “always good to remind everyone that a good portion of the money allocated to Ukraine is being spent in this country to rebuild our industrial base.”

But even in the Senate, efforts may become more complicated. On Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who single-handedly delayed an effort to send $40 billion in aid to Ukraine last May, published an op-ed in the American Conservative saying that he “will do everything in (his) power to block a bill that includes funding for Ukraine.”

“No matter how sympathetic we are to the Ukrainian people, my oath of office requires me to put the American people first,” Paul wrote. “I encourage my colleagues to oppose any effort to hold the federal government hostage for Ukraine funding.”

Zelensky is confronting a different political reality than the one that greeted him last year. On the battlefield, Ukraine’s counteroffensive has not yielded the results that many analysts and officials predicted, raising the prospects of a protracted conflict.

In Washington, not only has the push against continued funding from Congressional Republicans grown in number and in intensity, but the debate over sending more money to Ukraine is only a part of a larger battle over the government budget. Conservatives in the House have threatened to force the government to shut down if a list of demands, including no “blank check” for Ukraine, are not met. There have been few signs of progress in Congressional disputes over legislation to fund government agencies and Biden’s request for more aid now hangs in the balance.


File:Volodymyr Zelensky and Nancy Pelosi during a Joint Meeting of ...
Reporting | Washington Politics
Rand Paul Donald Trump
Top photo credit: Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Shutterstock/Mark Reinstein) and President Trump (White House/Molly Riley)

Rand Paul to Trump: Don't 'abandon' MAGA over Maduro regime change

Washington Politics

Sen. Rand Paul said on Friday that “all hell could break loose” within Donald Trump’s MAGA coalition if the president involves the U.S. further in Ukraine, and added that his supporters who voted for him after 20 years of regime change wars would "feel abandoned" if he went to war and tried to topple Nicolas Maduro, too.

President Trump has been getting criticism from some of his supporters for vowing to release the files of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and then reneging on that promise. Paul said that the Epstein heat Trump is getting from MAGA will be nothing compared to if he refuses to live up to his “America First” foreign policy promises.

keep readingShow less
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.