Follow us on social

google cta
Original

Congress wants crack at Biden's new $13.7B Ukraine aid package

Digging in for the long war apparently needs a constant replenishment of funds, even before the last $20 billion is fully spent.

Analysis | Europe
google cta
google cta

The White House dropped this little nugget on the Friday before the Labor Day weekend: it wants a new aid package totaling $13.7 billion, on top of the already approved $40 billion for Ukraine from May. We are just now getting some idea of what and why it wants the money now, but there are number of questions remaining.

Apparently members of Congress are noticing too, as they got back from break today. Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) told Defense News that he is asking the Secretary of Defense for a run down.

“I’m not opposed to it; I just want to know what’s in it,” said Tester. Armed Services Committee members Sens. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Thom Tillis, R-N.C., are also looking for a briefing, according to the website.

So what do we know?

According to our own reporting, the White House and Pentagon have announced over $12 billion in weapons transfers to Ukraine this summer. This is from the $19 billion earmarked for military assistance out of that $40 billion package (the rest going to humanitarian and economic aid). There should be some $6 billion left for weapons, according to the math. But the Defense News article is vague: It just suggests (via a quote from Armed Services Committee Chair Jim Inhofe) that there is only "roughly" $2.8 billion left in Presidential Drawdown Authority funds, which takes directly from the stockpiles. There are other streams available too.

According to Defense News, the new package is in addition to all that and would require Congressional approval. The $13.7 billion reportedly includes $11.7 billion for "security and economic assistance" (some $7.2 billion of that for military aid) through December. It also seeks an additional $2 billion to reduce domestic energy costs driven up in part by the war.

A further breakdown:

The $7.2 billion in new Ukraine (military) aid includes another $3.7 billion in presidential drawdown authority and a further $1.5 billion to replenish items sent to Ukraine from U.S. stockpiles. Another $3 billion, under the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, would allow the Pentagon to contract for new weapons and equipment for Ukraine.

Separately, the Pentagon would get just under $1.6 billion to continue the U.S. troop presence bolstering NATO’s eastern edge after Russia invaded.

Inhofe, of course, is cross that there isn't more money in the request, noting that the money from the first package expires Oct. 1. He says they should have enough for $2 billion per month in PDA funds, which is what they had in the last pot of dough.

“This aid package is insufficient to provide the Ukrainians with what they need to win,” Inhofe said on Twitter. “The Biden admin is now explicitly arguing to provide Ukraine with less military aid than Congress gave them several months ago in a massive bipartisan vote. Congress will have to lead again.”

“It’s clear that Congress will have a lot of work to do to improve a Ukraine aid package when we return."

The White House apparently wants to push this through the major continuing resolution bill that funds the government through December. Some Republicans are instead calling for a "clean" stand-alone bill (which would be more open to debate).

What we do know is there is a lot of money and weapons sloshing around and it is difficult to keep track of it all. We also know that the White House is digging in for the long war, even reportedly planning for a separate named command with a general and its own budget. We also know the Pentagon is running out of its own stockpiles. It's a Washington shell game — look away for a second and you may lose the thread. We'll do our best to watch, and keep updating.


U.S. Northern Command personnel move medical supplies for distribution at New York's Javits Medical Station as part of the U.S. military's COVID-19 response (U.S. Army Photo by Pvt. 1st Class Nathaniel Gayle)
google cta
Analysis | Europe
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

keep readingShow less
Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports
Top image credit: A large oil tanker transits the Strait of Hormuz. (Shutterstock/ Clare Louise Jackson)

Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports

QiOSK

Hours after the U.S. and Israel launched a campaign of airstrikes across Iran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is warning vessels in the Persian Gulf via radio that “no ship is allowed to pass the Strait of Hormuz,” according to a report from Reuters.

The news suggests that Iran is ready to pull out all the stops in its response to the U.S.-Israeli barrage, which President Donald Trump says is aimed at toppling the Iranian regime. A full shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz would cause an international crisis given that 20% of the world’s oil passes through the narrow channel. Financial analysts estimate that even one day of a full blockade could cause global oil prices to double from $66 per barrel to more than $120.

keep readingShow less
Ro Khanna Jon Fetterman
Top photo credit: Ro Khanna (creative commons/WebSummitt ) and Jon Fetterman (shutterstock/EB Photos)

Fury and fanboys: US, world leaders react to US-Israeli war on Iran

QiOSK

The reactions are already coming in following the early morning attacks on Iran by U.S. and Israeli forces in what is being called "Operation Epic Fury." The reports are fluid, but as President Trump announced on his Truth Social, the U.S. is taking aim at Iran's military and senior leadership and hopes to raze both so that the Iranian people can take over. "When we are finished the government is yours to take. Your hour of freedom is at hand."

For some, like U.S. Senator Jon Fetterman, a Democrat who represents the people of Pennsylvania, this is the greatest thing to happen since the last time the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran in June. "President Trump has been willing to do what’s right and necessary to produce real peace in the region. God bless the United States, our great military, and Israel."

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.