Follow us on social

google cta
Republicans balk at Biden plan to put Israel, Ukraine - and Taiwan? - aid to one vote

Republicans balk at Biden plan to put Israel, Ukraine - and Taiwan? - aid to one vote

Chafing at what they see as a cynical political gambit, even supporters of Kyiv funding say it deserves a separate debate.

Reporting | Washington Politics
google cta
google cta

Despite a chilly reception from Republicans on Capitol Hill this week, President Joe Biden is reportedly planning on moving forward with his proposal to combine aid for Ukraine and Israel—along with funding for other policies—into a single package.

The White House’s emergency supplemental request for Ukraine has been hanging in the balance since August, languishing in Congress as House Republicans deal with internal chaos and opposition to further funding of Kyiv has been growing among GOP members.

The question of future aid to Ukraine has been central in House debates over the last month; first, in the battle over continued funding of the U.S. government; and subsequently in the dispute that resulted in the removal of Kevin McCarthy from his position as Speaker.

In an effort to potentially get around these roadblocks, the Biden administration has been weighing combining that aid with funding for Israel, Taiwan, and border security.

Providing funding for Israel in the aftermath of Hamas’ shocking attacks over the weekend will likely garner nearly unanimous support from Congress. As Responsible Statecraft noted on Monday, an emergency package for Israel would “likely sail through Congress, observers say, with or without a House Speaker.”

The White House is likely hoping that the speed with which legislators will want to pass aid for Israel will push enough Republicans to put their reluctance to supporting more funds for Kyiv to the side. Such a “move could make sense because it ‘jams the far right,’” ias an anonymous senior administration official told the Washington Post earlier this week.

Biden’s planned proposal has received explicit support from some prominent House Republicans, including the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), a strong supporter of continued funding for Ukraine. “There’s discussion about putting Israeli funding with Ukraine funding, maybe Taiwan funding and finally border security funding,” McCaul said Monday. “To me that would be a good package.”

The important question is how Republican members who are skeptical of funding Ukraine’s war effort will react. After successfully managing to remove $300 million in aid from the Defense Department’s Appropriations Act last month, some GOP lawmakers insist that they will continue to oppose support for Kyiv, even if it is tied to aid for Israel.

“They shouldn’t be tied together. I will not vote to fund Ukraine. Absolutely not,” said Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), one the staunchest opponents of Ukraine aid in the House. “Israel is totally separate.”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) went a step further, suggesting that “any funding for Ukraine should be redirected to Israel immediately.”

Others have not gone so far as to say that they would oppose such a package if it came to a vote, but have still cautioned against combining what they see as two distinct issues.

For some Republicans, contrary to the Biden administration’s hopes, the need for swift legislation that supports Israel is precisely why it should be voted on separately.

“We’ve got to do something for Israel today if we can, or tomorrow,” Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) told NBC News on Monday, whereas the conversation of future Ukraine aid is “an argument that’s in process.”

The Heritage Foundation, the influential conservative think tank that has opposed additional Ukraine aid, has made a similar case. “Lawmakers need to resist attempts to link emergency military support for Israel with additional funding for Ukraine,” the group wrote on X. “These conflicts are separate and distinct. They deserve individual debates and votes in Congress.”

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), who emphasized that it was “morally right” to help both Israel and Ukraine, added that “to hold one hostage for the other wouldn’t be right.”

Rep. Tom Cole, (R-Okla.), who supports aid to Ukraine (in a separate bill) was even more blunt, calling the move “blackmail.”

Whether or not such a package receives a vote on the House floor may ultimately come down to the future of House leadership. Supporters of Ukraine aid may have received a slight boost on Wednesday, when Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) edged out Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) in the Republican conference vote to become the GOP nominee to replace McCarthy. However, the vote to elect the next Speaker did not take place on Wednesday, with Scalise still reportedly short of the necessary 217 total votes to prevail as Speaker.

Jordan had earlier stated that he opposed bringing Ukraine aid to the floor, and, when asked Wednesday whether he would be in favor of tying that aid to aid for Israel, he said “We gotta help Israel that’s for sure.” Some took this response as a signal that aid to Ukraine would take a backseat to supporting Israel.

Scalise has not commented on how he would treat Ukraine funding if elected, but he has voted in favor of aid packages in the past.


Photo credit: Rep. Steve Scalise addresses Capitol Hill reporters on 10/11/23.(Photo: REUTERS)

google cta
Reporting | Washington Politics
Dan Caine
Top photo credit: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine conduct a press briefing on Operation Epic Fury at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., March 4, 2026. (DoW photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza)

Did Caine just announce the Morgenthau option for Iran?

QiOSK

Gen. Dan Caine’s formulation of American war aims in Iran is remarkable not because it is bellicose, but because it is strategically incoherent.

In a press conference Tuesday morning, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not describe a limited campaign to suppress missile fire, blunt Iran’s naval threat, or even impose a severe but bounded setback on Tehran’s coercive instruments. He described a campaign against Iran’s “military and industrial base” designed to prevent the regime from attacking Americans, U.S. interests, and regional partners “for years to come.” In an earlier briefing he put the objective similarly: to prevent Iran from projecting power outside its borders. Rather than the language of a discrete coercive operation, this describes a war against a state’s capacity to regenerate power.

keep readingShow less
Ilham Aliyev azerbaijan iran
Top photo credit: Azerbaijan president Ilham Aliyev visited Embassy of Islamic Republic of Iran, offered condolences over death of former President Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, in 2017. (Office of the President of Azerbaijan/public domain)

Neocons wanted an Azeri uprising against Iran. They didn't get it.

Middle East

With Iran resisting the U.S./Israeli onslaught for the second week, what was supposed to be a quick transition to a pro-U.S. regime following the decapitation strike that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is fast turning into a quagmire. While the U.S. and Israel continue to sow mayhem on Tehran from the skies, the previously unthinkable option of sending ground troops to Iran is gaining ground.

First, an apparent plan was being hatched to employ Kurdish fighters to take on Tehran. Then, when drones, allegedly flying from Iran although Tehran denied it, struck the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic of Azerbaijan — hitting an airport terminal and a village school, and wounding four civilians — the stage appeared set for the opening of a northern front against Iran. Here was an alleged act of aggression from Iranian territory against Israel's closest partner in the South Caucasus. It offered the pretext to goad Azerbaijan into joining the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran.

keep readingShow less
Trump miami press conference iran
Top photo credit: Trump press conference on Iran, Miami, 3/9/26 (PBS screengrab)

Trump press conference reveals a man who wants out of war

QiOSK

Trump’s “all over the place” press conference at his Miami resort on Monday appears to have had two key objectives: a) Calm the markets by signalling the conflict may soon be over because it has been so "successful,” and b) Prepare the ground for Trump ending the war through a unilateral declaration of victory.

Though ending a war that never should have been started in the first place — rather than fighting it endlessly in the pursuit of an illusory victory as the U.S. did in Afghanistan — is the right move, it won’t be as easy as Trump appears to think.

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.