Follow us on social

google cta
Is the House where Ukraine — and Israel — aid goes to die?

Is the House where Ukraine — and Israel — aid goes to die?

Some in the Senate are expressing optimism that the President's $100 billion package will pass, at least in that chamber

Reporting | Washington Politics
google cta
google cta

U.S. aid for Ukraine has run out, and President Joe Biden’s proposal for more has been held up in Congress since he unveiled his national security supplemental — last October. This week, however, could be pivotal for the future of Washington’s funding of Ukraine’s nearly two-year war with the Russians.

The approximately $100 billion proposal — which includes roughly $60 billion in aid for Ukraine, $10 billion for Israel, and the rest for Taiwan and border security — has been stuck due to the two parties’ inability to reach an agreement on questions surrounding border security and immigration policy.

Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.), who have been leading the negotiations, have reportedly held a series of meetings in recent days, while Biden met with Congressional leadership last week to discuss the supplemental. There appears to have been some movement, as Murphy, as well as Senate leaders Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), have sounded optimistic notes about reaching an agreement in the near future — though a final bill text does not yet appear imminent.

But even if the Senate manages to strike a deal on border security, there is no guarantee of sufficient support in Congress to pass the rest of the supplemental, and most importantly, the Ukraine aid.

“There’s still majority support in Congress for Ukraine funding thanks to Democrats and GOP hawks, but it’s unclear if a majority of House or Senate Republicans would back it,” Punchbowl News reported on Monday. “So even with a border security plus immigration deal in hand, there’s no way lawmakers will greenlight Biden’s $60 billion request. The White House will have to narrow it to just military aid; financial or economic support for the Ukranians — as vital as it may be — won’t have any chance of passing.”

Following the request by a group of Senate Republicans, led by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), the GOP conference will meet on Wednesday to discuss their position on Ukraine aid. While the Senate has typically been more in favor of funding Kyiv’s war effort than their counterparts in the House, the Punchbowl News report suggests that some of that support might be eroding.

The House is out this week, but, once they return, the situation promises to be even more complicated.

Rep. Johnson has said that he is open to considering the aid package but that border security is the top policy priority for the Republican caucus right now. In addition, the speaker, who prior to assuming a leadership role consistently voted against Ukraine aid, said that he understood the importance of supporting Kyiv but would only do so under certain conditions.

“We need the questions answered about the strategy, about the endgame and about the accountability for the precious treasure of the American people,” he said last week.

Meanwhile, the House Republicans who have been staunchly opposed to sending more aid to Ukraine insist that they will go to great lengths to prevent such a bill from getting a vote.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) told Axios last week that she would introduce a “motion to vacate” against Speaker Johnson if he allows another round of Ukraine funding to pass. Some Democrats have suggested that they would vote to save Johnson’s job in such a circumstance — if he allows the supplemental to pass.

The Speaker is unquestionably navigating tricky political waters here. As Politico put it this weekend: “There are a million reasons why this idea will probably never come to pass. For one, Johnson is very unlikely to ever go there. He’d utterly ruin his relationship with Trump — not to mention alienate large swaths of his own conference by relying on Democrats to keep his job.”

Making matters even more complicated, a number of congressional Democrats have begun to express their uneasiness with Washington’s unconditional support for Israel’s ongoing war on Gaza. Following the first serious attempt on Capitol Hill to scrutinize Israel for potential human rights abuses, 18 Senators announced their support for an amendment to the national security supplemental that would require “that the weapons received by any country under this bill are used in accordance with U.S. law, international humanitarian law and the law of armed conflict.”

“The American people should feel confident that every country that receives U.S. military assistance is held to a standard consistent with our values,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) in a statement. “This amendment underscores that we expect any country that receives U.S. assistance to follow international laws of war and take measures to protect innocent civilians caught in conflict zones.”

Given that many of the cosponsors are allies of Biden and strong backers of Kyiv’s war effort, it seems unlikely that they would sink the supplemental if the amendment fails.

Nonetheless, the path to passing this legislation is filled with roadblocks and question marks. Biden has implored Congress to approve his proposal as soon as possible, but even as incremental progress is made, final passage still appears to be a ways away.


File:Nancy Pelosi, Volodimir Zelensky, Chuck Schumer, Andriy ...
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
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

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.