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
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

keep readingShow less
Starmer Macron Merz
Top image credit: France's President Emmanuel Macron, Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz arrive at Kyiv railway station on May 10, 2025, ahead of a gathering of European leaders in the Ukrainian capital. LUDOVIC MARIN/Pool via REUTERS
Europe's snapback gamble risks killing diplomacy with Iran

Craven Europeans give US and Israel a blank check for illegal war

Middle East

In the aftermath of the new U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran, the transatlantic alliance has offered a response that confirmed what many both in the West and outside knew all along: that for London, Paris, Berlin, and Brussels, the "rules-based international order" has been reduced to a simple, brutal premise: might makes right, provided the might is Western.

The joint statement from the E3 — France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — is a master class in evasion. "We did not participate in these strikes, but are in close contact with our international partners, including the United States and Israel," they declared. The text also lists all the references and rationalizations used by Iran hawks — “nuclear program, ballistic missile program, regional destabilization and repression against its own people.”

keep readingShow less
Trump Iran
Top image credit: Hundreds of people attend a pro-democracy demonstration against U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C., U.S., on February 28, 2026. Demonstrators cited a number of reasons for their opposition to Trump, including his involvement with sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, ICE raids, authoritarian policies, and today’s bombing of Iran. (Photo by Allison Bailey/NurPhoto) via REUTERS CONNECT

How does this war with Iran end? Or does it?

QiOSK

Now that President Trump has launched an illegal, unprovoked war of choice on Iran, the next question inevitably becomes: how does this end? Or, what are some off ramps Trump can take to end it before the situation turns out of control?

There are three broad scenarios; the first and most likely is that Trump continues this until he gets some sort of regime implosion and then declares victory, while also washing his hands of whatever follows.

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.