Follow us on social

google cta
Ukraine, Israel & Taiwan aid now heads to a fractured House

Ukraine, Israel & Taiwan aid now heads to a fractured House

After passing the Senate this morning, $95 billion funding package will test Speaker Johnson’s mettle

Reporting | QiOSK
google cta
google cta

In an outcome that appeared unlikely just weeks ago, the Senate passed the $95 billion national security supplemental on Tuesday morning, by a vote of 70-29. Whether the bill will eventually become law remains an open question.

The legislation — which included $60 billion in aid for Ukraine, approximately $14 billion in security assistance for Israel, $9.2 billion in humanitarian aid for Gazans and people in other war zones, and almost $5 billion in aid for partners in the Indo-Pacific — received support from 22 Republicans and 48 Democratic senators.

Two Democrats, along with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), voted against the package in opposition to the money being sent to Israel as it conducts its retaliatory war in Gaza which has so far resulted in over 28,000 deaths, according to the Gazan health ministry.

Among Republicans, support slowly grew during a series of procedural votes, but ultimately less than half of the caucus voted for a bill that was supported by most of party leadership in the Senate.

For months, the next tranche of Ukraine aid has been hanging in the balance. After a tumultuous few days, there now appears to be the chance of passage, though the road ahead is murky.

Earlier in February, the Senate —which has largely been more supportive of continued aid for Ukraine than has the House — had devised to include border security measures as a way to convince skeptical Republicans to support aid for Ukraine.

But the bill was dead essentially as soon as it landed, with a large group of Republicans opposing the border language, which had been negotiated by Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.), and James Lankford (R-Okla.) . Within two days Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, (R-Ky.), who had earlier championed the legislation, acknowledged that “we have no chance to make a law” from the current proposal.

Instead, the Senate returned to the Biden administration’s plan A, by bringing his sprawling foreign aid package to the floor. A group of Republicans, led by Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), J.D. Vance (R-Okla.), and Mike Lee (R-Utah) used procedural tools to drag the process out, opposing the quick passage of the bill and what they see as a misguided push to keep funding Kyiv’s war effort.

“It was the bipartisan foreign policy consensus, the experts, that got us into a 20 year war in Afghanistan, where American taxpayers, for two decades, funded things like how to turn Afghanistan into a flowering democracy, or how to ensure that the Afghans had proper American thoughts about gender in the 21st century. Well, maybe that was a waste of money, and maybe the experts were wrong,” Vance said during a floor speech on Monday. ““Now, those experts have a new crusade. Now those experts have a new thing that American taxpayers must fund and must fund indefinitely. And it is called the conflict in Ukraine.” Following an overnight filibuster, the Senate eventually passed the bill.

McConnell declared victory on Tuesday morning. “Today, we faced a clear test of that resolve. Our adversaries want America to decide that reinforcing allies and partners is not in our interest, and that investing in strategic competition is not worth it. They want us to take hard-earned credibility and light it on fire,” the minority leader said in a statement. “History settles every account. And today, on the value of American leadership and strength, history will record that the Senate did not blink.”

Getting this legislation through the House, however, presents another, likely even more difficult, test. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) said late on Monday in a statement that the House will “work its own will on these important matters,” and that “America deserves better than the Senate’s status quo.” Johnson has maintained that the supplemental should include border security provisions, but he has also said that he does want to support Kyiv.

If the legislation is ever brought to a vote, it is likely to have enough votes, but Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), an opponent of Ukraine aid, has pledged to use a “motion to vacate” to remove Johnson from the speakership if he allows a vote on funding Kyiv. Accusations that he had made a “secret deal” with Biden to send more aid to Ukraine was partially responsible for ending Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) term as Speaker last year.

To get around this roadblock, congressional Democrats have floated voting to keep Johnson in power if he allows a vote on the national security spending package to proceed. Alternatively, strong supporters of Ukraine in the House could use a discharge petition to overcome opponents of the legislation — a process that can allow a House majority to bypass leadership and force floor action on a bill that has been stuck in committee (RS explained in more detail how this process could work last year).


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Mike Johnson (R-LA) speaks to members of the news media at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., February 7, 2024. REUTERS/Leah Millis

google cta
Reporting | QiOSK
What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?
Top image credit: Voodison328 via shutterstock.com

What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?

Global Crises

Earlier this month in Geneva, delegates to the Antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty’s 22nd Meeting of States Parties confronted the most severe crisis in the convention’s nearly three-decade history. That crisis was driven by an unprecedented convergence of coordinated withdrawals by five European states and Ukraine’s attempt to “suspend” its treaty obligations amid an ongoing armed conflict.

What unfolded was not only a test of the resilience of one of the world’s most successful humanitarian disarmament treaties, but also a critical moment for the broader system of international norms designed to protect civilians during and after war. Against a background of heightened tensions resulting from the war in Ukraine and unusual divisions among the traditional convention champions, the countries involved made decisions that will have long-term implications.

keep readingShow less
The 8 best foreign policy books of 2025
Top image credit: Dabari CGI/Shutterstock

The 8 best foreign policy books of 2025

Media

I spent the last few weeks asking experts about the foreign policy books that stood out in 2025. My goal was to create a wide-ranging list, featuring volumes that shed light on the most important issues facing American policymakers today, from military spending to the war in Gaza and the competition with China. Here are the eight books that made the cut.

keep readingShow less
Why Russians haven't risen up to stop the Ukraine war
Top image credit: People walking on Red square in Moscow in winter. (Oleg Elkov/Shutterstock)

Why Russians haven't risen up to stop the Ukraine war

Europe

After its emergence from the Soviet collapse, the new Russia grappled with the complex issue of developing a national identity that could embrace the radical contradictions of Russia’s past and foster integration with the West while maintaining Russian distinctiveness.

The Ukraine War has significantly changed public attitudes toward this question, and led to a consolidation of most of the Russian population behind a set of national ideas. This has contributed to the resilience that Russia has shown in the war, and helped to frustrate Western hopes that economic pressure and heavy casualties would undermine support for the war and for President Vladimir Putin. To judge by the evidence to date, there is very little hope of these Western goals being achieved in the future.

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.