Follow us on social

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

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 ...
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.