Follow us on social

Is Jim Jordan offering Ukraine aid vote in exchange for support?

Is Jim Jordan offering Ukraine aid vote in exchange for support?

Report cites Republicans who left meeting with the House Speaker hopeful.

Reporting | QiOSK

Jim Jordan’s bid to become the next Speaker of the House gained momentum today, with a number of prominent Republican members reversing earlier statements and pledging to support his bid.

According to a new report from Axios, that change of heart may have been motivated in part by assurances from the Ohio Congressman that he would allow a floor vote on linking Ukraine funding with Israel funding if he wins the gavel.

Axios’ reporting cites four House Republicans that left meetings with the Speaker nominee “under the impression” that Jordan would allow such a vote.

Many of the members who came out in support of Jordan’s bid this morning cited productive conversations with the Congressman, without providing any specifics.

Some of the members who surprisingly endorsed Jordan’s bid this morning are defense hawks like Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who were reportedly concerned about Jordan’s reluctance to continue funding Kyiv’s war effort and his desire to enact that 1% across-the-board spending cut that could have included the Pentagon.

"He's not going to block a vote,’ said one of the House Republicans who spoke with Jordan,” according to Axios.

A spokesman for Jordan’s office told Axios that the Congressman made no promises, and that “Jordan's conversations were about working to find the right approach, rather than specific promises.”

As RS previously reported, a significant number of Republicans on Capitol Hill — including a number of supporters of further aid for Ukraine — had balked at the Biden administration’s planned proposal to combine aid for Kyiv, Tel Aviv, and more into a single package.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who last month emphasized his support for supporting Ukraine, likened the move to combine that effort with aid to Israel to “blackmail.”

Others were more blunt. “They shouldn’t be tied together. I will not vote to fund Ukraine. Absolutely not,” said Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) last week. “Israel is totally separate.”

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who has been a staunch supporter of Jordan’s candidacy, said on CNN last week “however you feel about Israel and Ukraine, I think a responsible and reasonable government ought to address those questions separately."

During the interview, he implied that Jordan shared that sentiment. Gaetz earlier led an effort to remove Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) from the Speakership, in part because the former Speaker had made a “secret side deal” with Biden to keep funding Ukraine.

The floor vote for Speaker is expected to be held tomorrow, and it is not yet confirmed whether Jordan has enough votes to cross the 217-vote threshold, despite the string of eleventh-hour endorsements.



Congressman Jim Jordan (R)

Congressman Jim Jordan (R)

Photo: Rep. Jim Jordan (Shutterstock/Lev Radin)

Reporting | QiOSK
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

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.