Follow us on social

google cta
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
google cta
google cta

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
google cta
Reporting | QiOSK
United Nations
Monitors at the United Nations General Assembly hall display the results of a vote on a resolution condemning the annexation of parts of Ukraine by Russia, amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City, New York, U.S., October 12, 2022. REUTERS/David 'Dee' Delgado||

We're burying the rules based order. But what's next?

Global Crises

In a Davos speech widely praised for its intellectual rigor and willingness to confront established truths, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney finally laid the fiction of the “rules-based international order” to rest.

The “rules-based order” — or RBIO — was never a neutral description of the post-World War II system of international law and multilateral institutions. Rather, it was a discourse born out of insecurity over the West’s decline and unwillingness to share power. Aimed at preserving the power structures of the past by shaping the norms and standards of the future, the RBIO was invariably something that needed to be “defended” against those who were accused of opposing it, rather than an inclusive system that governed relations between all states.

keep readingShow less
china trump
President Donald Trump announces the creation of a critical minerals reserve during an event in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, DC on Monday, February 2, 2026. Trump announced the creation of “Project Vault,” a rare earth stockpile to lower reliance on China for rare earths and other resources. Photo by Bonnie Cash/Pool/Sipa USA

Trump vs. his China hawks

Asia-Pacific

In the year since President Donald Trump returned to the White House, China hawks have started to panic. Leading lights on U.S. policy toward Beijing now warn that Trump is “barreling toward a bad bargain” with the Chinese Communist Party. Matthew Pottinger, a key architect of Trump’s China policy in his first term, argues that the president has put Beijing in a “sweet spot” through his “baffling” policy decisions.

Even some congressional Republicans have criticized Trump’s approach, particularly following his decision in December to allow the sale of powerful Nvidia AI chips to China. “The CCP will use these highly advanced chips to strengthen its military capabilities and totalitarian surveillance,” argued Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), who chairs the influential Select Committee on Competition with China.

keep readingShow less
Is America still considered part of the 'Americas'?
Top image credit: bluestork/shutterstock.com

Is America still considered part of the 'Americas'?

Latin America

On January 7, the White House announced its plans to withdraw from 66 international bodies whose work it had deemed inconsistent with U.S. national interests.

While many of these organizations were international in nature, three of them were specific to the Americas — the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, the Pan American Institute of Geography and History, and the U.N.’s Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. The decision came on the heels of the Dominican Republic postponing the X Summit of the Americas last year following disagreements over who would be invited and ensuing boycotts.

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.