Follow us on social

House votes to avoid govt shutdown, but no Ukraine, Israel aid

House votes to avoid govt shutdown, but no Ukraine, Israel aid

Advocates say foreign funding is next priority, but hurdles remain.

Reporting | Washington Politics

Aid for Ukraine and Israel — a policy priority for the White House for the last month — remains in limbo after the House of Representatives passed a short-term measure that would keep the government funded into next year.

The Biden administration, with support from Senate leadership, has urged Congress to pass an $106 billion emergency supplemental that includes money for Kyiv and Tel Aviv as they continue their respective war efforts, as well as funding for border security and the Indo-Pacific.

Instead, recently installed Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), decided to pursue a two-step continuing resolution (CR) that will maintain current funding levels, with certain government agencies funded until January 19 and the rest of the government until February 2.

As recently as Saturday, the White House called the proposal “unserious,” but eventually reversed course and told House Democrats that Biden would support the legislation. The bill eventually passed overwhelmingly, 336-95, with 209 Democrats and 127 Republicans voting in favor. Only two Democrats and 93 Republicans opposed the measure.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, explained during Politico’s defense summit earlier on Tuesday that keeping the government afloat had to take precedence over more potentially controversial issues.

“The first priority is to get the CR,” Reed said. “The second priority is to get funding for Israel and Ukraine … we have to do both.” It appears as if the White House and Democrats in the House eventually reached the same conclusion.

But it is unclear exactly how the second part of that plan would be accomplished. The House GOP earlier this month passed a bill that would have provided Israel with $14.3 billion, though it offset that spending by cutting funds for the Internal Revenue Service. Both the Senate majority and the White House have called that legislation a nonstarter.

On Ukraine, the terrain is even more tricky. “[C]ongressional interest in financing its fight against invading Russian forces has dipped lower than ever, and rising competition from other national security priorities — including Israel and the U.S. southern border — could sound the death knell for continued American aid for its embattled European ally,” explained the Washington Post on Tuesday.

The hesitance for continued aid has thus far come from Republicans in Congress, who argue that there are other more important priorities and that the Biden administration has not produced a strategy for how the war in Ukraine ends. A small but growing and increasingly loud minority of GOP members have held up funding for Kyiv, threatening to shutdown the federal government in September and later removing Speaker Kevin McCarthy from power in part because of their opposition to more aid.

“The growing prospect that Congress, amid this chaotic landscape, will simply not approve additional aid for Ukraine could have major geopolitical ramifications, undermining one of Biden’s central foreign policy objectives,” the Post story continues. “Republican lawmakers’ appetite for further helping Ukraine has been declining for many months, however, even before the nation’s much-anticipated summer offensive failed to produce any dramatic breakthroughs, as polling has showed a steady descent in the American public’s once robust support.”

Johnson’s own views on funding Kyiv are not obvious, as his rhetoric since assuming the Speakership mildly contradicts his consistent anti-aid voting record. He — like other Republicans — has said that there needs to be more clarity from the White House and more accountability for the money — but ultimately, he said last month, “we’re not gonna abandon them.” However, media reports since then say that it is “widely expected” that Johnson would not move to bring Ukraine aid legislation to the floor.

Other participants at the Politico Defense Summit on Tuesday, all of whom were supporters of approving another tranche, seemed cautiously optimistic that Kyiv would receive more aid once the government funding debate was settled.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) the ranking member of the House armed services committee predicted that if a standalone bill to supply Ukraine with more was brought to the floor, it would receive “300 votes, easy.”

“The problem isn't getting the votes,” Smith said. “The problem is getting the Republicans to negotiate their politics so that they give us a vote to support Ukraine.”

Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) said that the future of Washington’s support for Kyiv would be the “bellwether” for the status of American global leadership. “Will we ultimately deliver a package of aid to Ukraine?” asked Himes. “I think so.”

The Biden administration has stressed the importance of providing more support to Kyiv promptly, arguing that the war is at a crossroads.

The Senate, which has been more supportive of the White House’s proposal than the House, is expected to pass a version of Biden’s supplemental sometime soon. Leadership from both parties is reportedly hammering out the details and the Senate version likely won’t come to floor until lawmakers return from Thanksgiving recess.

"We have Democrats and Republicans working together to try to come up with a border security package that will have bipartisan support,” Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said on Tuesday. “But we have to get this done, and as soon as we come back in Thanksgiving, it will be a very high priority, get all four of them done, all four have bipartisan support in the House. Together.”


U.S. Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA), the new House Speaker, talks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., October 25, 2023. REUTERS/Nathan Howard
U.S. Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA), the new House Speaker, talks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., October 25, 2023. REUTERS/Nathan Howard
Reporting | Washington Politics
Iran nuclear
Top image credit: Inspired by maps via shutterstock.com

How the US could use Iran's uranium enrichment to its own advantage

Middle East

Since mid-April, Iran and the United States held numerous rounds of nuclear negotiations that have made measured progress — until Washington abruptly stated that Iran had no right to enrich uranium. Moreover, 200 members of the U.S. Congress sent president Trump a letter opposing any deal that would allow Iran to retain uranium enrichment capability.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei called U.S. demands “excessive and outrageous” and “nonsense.” Since the beginning of the Iranian nuclear crisis in 2003, Tehran has drawn a clear red line: the peaceful right to enrich uranium under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is non-negotiable.

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest 3

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

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.