Follow us on social

White House to Congress: Foreign weapons funding is all about US jobs

White House to Congress: Foreign weapons funding is all about US jobs

Secretaries Blinken and Austin defended the administration’s Israel policy at a hearing interrupted by antiwar protestors.

Reporting | QiOSK

The Biden administration’s funding request for Israel and Ukraine will be a boon for the American economy, argued Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin in a high profile hearing on Tuesday.

“When we send our friends munitions from our stockpiles, the money to replenish our supplies strengthens our military readiness, and we invest in American industry and American workers,” Austin told the Senate Appropriations Committee. “Some $50 billion of this supplemental request would flow through our defense industrial base, creating American jobs in more than 30 states.”

The argument has become central to the Biden administration’s messaging in recent weeks as it seeks Republican support for its $105 billion request to fund aid for Ukraine and Israel; disaster relief; and border security.

It is unclear whether the “jobs” argument has convinced Ukraine aid skeptics in the House, who have pushed for greater restrictions on future funding. But it resonated with many senators on the Appropriations Committee, who applauded the potential investment in America’s economy and defense industrial base.

Experts, for their part, argue that weapons spending is far less effective at creating jobs than other forms of government investment, including education and healthcare.

On Monday, Newly minted House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) introduced a separate bill that only includes funding for Israel. Blinken argued against the move, contending that Russia’s war on Ukraine and Hamas’s attack on Israel are fundamentally linked. Austin added that the Ukrainian military would collapse if American support were cut off.

Protestors repeatedly interrupted Blinken’s remarks in the first half hour of the hearing, with at least six different demonstrators calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and accusing the White House of supporting “genocide.” Multiple participants in the protest appeared to be affiliated with Code Pink, a prominent antiwar organization.

“I also hear very much the passions expressed in this room,” Blinken said after demonstrators were removed. “All of us are committed to the protection of civilian life.”

“But all of us know the imperative of standing up with our allies and partners when their security, when their democracies are threatened,” he added. “We stand resolutely with them even as we stand resolutely for the protection of innocent civilians.”

Blinken and Austin defended U.S. policy in Ukraine and Israel, frequently invoking alleged war crimes committed by Russian forces and Hamas. “Israel has not only the right but the duty to defend itself,” Blinken said, echoing a frequent argument from the Biden administration in recent weeks. “No nation would tolerate” Hamas continuing to operate on their territory, he continued.

Neither official directly addressed claims that Israel has violated international law through alleged disproportionate violence against Gazan civilians, use of banned munitions like white phosphorus, and efforts to prevent aid from reaching Gaza. Blinken “stressed the need for Israel to abide by the law of war” but accused Hamas of using civilians as “human shields.”

Blinken highlighted that Gazans “desperately need” humanitarian assistance in order to survive. He also noted that the U.S., Israel, and Egypt have established a system whereby every United Nations-operated truck “is checked by Israel” and Egyptian authorities in order to prevent Hamas from transporting weapons in aid shipments. Blinken added that no aid has been diverted to help the militant organization, which both he and Austin repeatedly compared to the Islamic State.

Austin, for his part, addressed the escalation of attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria by Iranian-backed militias, which the Pentagon has responded to with at least one set of airstrikes on a militia base in Syria. “We reserve the right to respond at a place and time of our choosing,” he said. “We will do what’s necessary to protect our troops and deter this type of behavior.”

When pressed by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Austin refused to commit to a direct attack on Iran if an Iranian-backed militia killed an American soldier in a strike in Iraq or Syria.


Photo credit: Screengrab via appropriations.senate.gov
Reporting | QiOSK
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less
The 8-point buzzsaw facing any invasion of Taiwan
Taipei skyline, Taiwan. (Shutterstock/ YAO23)

The 8-point buzzsaw facing any invasion of Taiwan

Asia-Pacific

For the better part of a decade, China has served as the “pacing threat” around which American military planners craft defense policy and, most importantly, budget decisions.

Within that framework, a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan has become the scenario most often cited as the likeliest flashpoint for a military confrontation between the two superpowers.

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.