Follow us on social

19064739186_c2ae8ca00d_o-scaled

Congress bucks Biden, blocks $75 million in military aid to Egypt

A leading Democratic senator rejected the notion that Cairo has made efforts to improve its human rights record in the past year.

Middle East

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) blocked $75 million of security funding for Egypt after determining that the country’s leaders have not rolled back their attack on political dissidents, failing to meet a condition that Congress put on aid to Cairo in a law passed last year, according to Reuters.

“We can't give short shrift to the law because of other policy considerations,” Leahy, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, told Reuters in a statement. “We all have a responsibility to uphold the law and to defend the due process rights of the accused, whether here or in Egypt.”

The move highlights the extent to which Congress has soured on Egypt in recent years. Once considered a steadfast security partner, many on Capitol Hill now view Cairo as a serious liability for U.S. policy, especially under the authoritarian rule of President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi.

In total, last year’s law put conditions on $300 million worth of military aid to Egypt. The Biden administration recently pledged to block $130 million of that support, but the State Department said it would release $75 million following progress on Egypt’s treatment of political prisoners. Leahy rejected that finding, arguing that “the situation facing political prisoners in Egypt is deplorable.” The status of the remaining $95 million remains unclear.

Seth Binder, the director of advocacy at the Project on Middle East Democracy, applauded Leahy’s decision on Twitter.

“Ultimately, this sends a strong message to Sisi’s regime that it must address Congress’s concerns over human rights,” Binder wrote, adding that the administration’s determination that Sisi had made “clear and consistent progress” was “not credible.”

Notably, the move will only hold up a fraction of the $1.3 billion in security aid that Washington sends Cairo each year, opening up questions about how much of an impact it will really have on human rights in Egypt. 

Still, it does appear to be part of a broader increase in skepticism toward Middle East autocrats in Washington.

Just a couple of weeks ago, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates also stumbled into Congress’ crosshairs when the Saudi-dominated oil cartel OPEC+ voted to cut production despite concerns from the U.S. Following that decision, members of Congress called for a fundamental re-evaluation of Washington’s relationship with the Gulf countries, with some demanding a full-scale withdrawal of U.S. troops from their territory. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he would hold up any arms sales to Saudi Arabia “beyond what is absolutely necessary to defend U.S. personnel and interests.”

And President Joe Biden himself has signaled that he is on-board with a shift in U.S. policy toward Riyadh and Abu Dhabi. As a White House spokesperson recently noted, Biden is “willing to work with Congress to think through what that relationship ought to look like going forward.”


Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). (CSIS/ CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Middle East
President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and President of Russia Vladimir Putin
Top photo credit: President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and President of Russia Vladimir Putin appear on screen. (shutterstock/miss.cabul)

Westerners foolishly rush to defend Azerbaijan against Russia

Europe

The escalating tensions between Russia and Azerbaijan — marked by tit-for-tat arrests, accusations of ethnic violence, and economic sparring — have tempted some Western observers to view the conflict as an opportunity to further isolate Moscow.

However, this is not a simple narrative of Azerbaijan resisting Russian dominance. It is a complex struggle over energy routes, regional influence, and the future of the South Caucasus, where Western alignment with Baku risks undermining critical priorities, including potential U.S.-Russia engagement on Ukraine and arms control.

keep readingShow less
Netanyahu, Trump, and Syrian President Ahmed Al-Sharaa
Top photo credit: OpenAI. 2025. Netanyahu, Trump, and Syrian President Ahmed Al-Sharaa. AI-generated image. ChatGPT

Shotgun wedding? Israel and Syria go to the altar

Middle East

For half a century, the border between Israel and Syria on the Golan Heights was a model of hostile stability. The guns were silent, but deep-seated antagonism prevailed, punctuated by repeated, failed attempts at diplomacy.

Now, following the sudden collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December 2024 and a 12-day war between Israel and Iran that has solidified Israel's military dominance in the region, the geopolitical ice is cracking.

In a turn of events that would have been unthinkable a year ago, Israel and Syria are in “advanced talks” to end hostilities. Reports now suggest a White House summit is being planned for as early as September, where Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would sign a security agreement, paving the way for normalization. But this is no outbreak of brotherly love; it is a display of realpolitik, a shotgun wedding between a triumphant Israel and a destitute Syria, with Washington playing the role of officiant.

keep readingShow less
American Special Operations
Top image credit: (shutterstock/FabrikaSimf)

American cult: Why our special ops need a reset

Military Industrial Complex

This article is the latest installment in our Quincy Institute/Responsible Statecraft project series highlighting the writing and reporting of U.S. military veterans. Click here for more information.

America’s post-9/11 conflicts have left indelible imprints on our society and our military. In some cases, these changes were so gradual that few noticed the change, except as snapshots in time.

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.