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.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

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

google cta
Reporting | Washington Politics
Gaza tent city
Top photo credit: Palestinian Mohammed Abu Halima, 43, sits in front of his tent with his children in a camp for displaced Palestinians in Gaza City, Gaza, on December 11, 2025. Matrix Images / Mohammed Qita

Four major dynamics in Gaza War that will impact 2026

Middle East

Just ahead of the New Year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to visit President Donald Trump in Florida today, no doubt with a wish list for 2026. Already there have been reports that he will ask Trump to help attack Iran’s nuclear program, again.

Meanwhile, despite the media narrative, the war in Gaza is not over, and more specifically, it has not ended in a clear victory for Netanyahu’s IDF forces. Nor has the New Year brought solace to the Palestinians — at least 71,000 have been killed since October 2023. But there have been a number of important dynamics and developments in 2025 that will affect not only Netanyahu’s “asks” but the future of security in Israel and the region.

keep readingShow less
Sokoto Nigeria
Top photo credit: Map of Nigeria (Shutterstock/Juan Alejandro Bernal)

Trump's Christmas Day strikes on Nigeria beg question: Why Sokoto?

Africa

For the first time since President Trump publicly excoriated Nigeria’s government for allegedly condoning a Christian genocide, Washington made good on its threat of military action on Christmas Day when U.S. forces conducted airstrikes against two alleged major positions of the Islamic State (IS-Sahel) in northwestern Sokoto state.

According to several sources familiar with the operation, the airstrike involved at least 16 GPS-guided munitions launched from the Navy destroyer, USS Paul Ignatius, stationed in the Gulf of Guinea. Debris from unexpended munition consistent with Tomahawk cruise missile components have been recovered in the village of Jabo, Sokoto state, as well nearly 600 miles away in Offa in Kwara state.

keep readingShow less
What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?
Top image credit: Voodison328 via shutterstock.com

What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?

Global Crises

Earlier this month in Geneva, delegates to the Antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty’s 22nd Meeting of States Parties confronted the most severe crisis in the convention’s nearly three-decade history. That crisis was driven by an unprecedented convergence of coordinated withdrawals by five European states and Ukraine’s attempt to “suspend” its treaty obligations amid an ongoing armed conflict.

What unfolded was not only a test of the resilience of one of the world’s most successful humanitarian disarmament treaties, but also a critical moment for the broader system of international norms designed to protect civilians during and after war. Against a background of heightened tensions resulting from the war in Ukraine and unusual divisions among the traditional convention champions, the countries involved made decisions that will have long-term implications.

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.