Follow us on social

New Speaker Johnson: Vote on separate $14.3B Israel aid bill this week

New Speaker Johnson: Vote on separate $14.3B Israel aid bill this week

Senators call it a 'poison pill' and 'non starter' because it doesn’t address Ukraine assistance

Reporting | Washington Politics

New House Speaker Mike Johsnon made good on a promise to bring a separate $14.3 billion Israel aid bill to the floor Monday, saying he'll pay for it by making cuts elsewhere in the budget.

This sets up a fight with the Senate and the White House, the first test for the newly minted Speaker.

The White House has proposed to combine $60 billion in aid for Kyiv with $14 billion for Tel Aviv — along with $14 billion for border security funding and $7 billion for the Indo-Pacific — into one emergency spending package, a plan that has received robust support from Senate leadership in both parties, but has created some controversy among House and Senate Republicans.

Johnson’s alternative is “a poison pill and non-starter. It’s just not the way we’re going to proceed,” according to Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “It’s got to be bipartisan. And the House has to realize they can’t work on a bill just with Republicans.”

Johnson, who emerged from a messy battle for the speakership last week, has been a quiet opponent of every Ukraine funding bill since May 2022. But his more recent rhetoric suggests that he may be more open to bringing a standalone funding package over the opposition of some of the more outspoken aid opponents in his party.

“We can’t allow Vladimir Putin to prevail in Ukraine because I don’t believe it would stop there, and would probably encourage and empower China to perhaps make a move on Taiwan," Johnson told Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Thursday, during his first interview as the leader of the House GOP. "We’re not gonna abandon [Ukraine].”

Johnson, however, stressed the need for accountability. “We want to know what the objective there is. What is the endgame in Ukraine? The White House has not provided that,” he said.

Because House Republicans are still “working through” the conditions they want to attach to future Ukraine funding, and aid for Israel is more pressing, Johnson emphasized that the issues should be kept separate, telling Hannity that he had informed the White House that it was “consensus” within his conference that Congress needs to “bifurcate” the two issues.

Some in the Senate GOP conference agree, having urged Congress to split up the proposal. Nine Republican Senators wrote a letter to leaders McConnell and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) making the case, and Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), one of the leaders of the effort, circulated a memo detailing what he sees as the five major areas differentiating the two countries. "The administration seeks to link Ukraine and Israel funding. This is a grave error that betrays a lack of strategic focus. Each conflict is distinct and represents a different claim on U.S. interests," the memo reads.

Republicans in the Senate have largely been more supportive of Ukraine aid than their counterparts in the House, and McConnell has been a vocal advocate for Biden’s plan. According to Politico, the minority leader has abandoned “his typically cautious style when it comes to aiding Ukraine, shrugging off potshots at his leadership and expending political capital for the embattled country despite a painful rift in the party.” But Vance maintains that his colleagues agree that the question should remain separated from support for Israel.

“There’s actually pretty wide consensus that we should separate Israel from the package,” Vance told Politico. “Whether there are nine Republicans who are willing to break off and join the Democrats is an open question,” he added, referring to the number of GOP votes that would be required to avoid a filibuster.

As the Senate prepares to unveil its spending proposal, Johnson is moving ahead with funding for Israel. “We’re gonna bring forward a standalone Israel funding measure,” he said on Fox News. “We’re gonna find pay fors in the budget, we’re not just printing money to send it overseas. We’re gonna find the cuts elsewhere to do that.”

As Punchbowl News put it, seeking such cuts for aid for Israel is “unheard of.” The bill, which was released on Monday afternoon, contains $14.3 billion in money for Israel, offset by $14.3 billion in cuts to the Internal Revenue Service and the Inflation Reduction Act. By including these cuts, the House GOP is reportedly hoping to shore up Republican support and possibly push some Democrats to oppose the measure.

Given the GOP’s slim margin in the House, Johnson can only afford four defections if all Democrats oppose his legislation. Two Republicans have already said that will vote against funding for Israel. “I will be voting NO on all funding packages for the Ukraine war (as I have from the beginning) and now the Israel war," wrote Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) on the social media platform X on Sunday.

"This week the House will vote on $14.5 billion foreign aid package for Israel, in addition to the $3.8 billion that already passed. I will be a NO vote,” added Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). "Less than 1/3 of the 49,000 people who responded to my poll today support this additional funding. We simply can't afford it."

Separating the two issues could eventually complicate efforts to pass Ukraine funding, even if Johnson proves more amenable than some of his colleagues. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) — an enthusiastic supporter of the new Speaker — has used the fact that a majority of Republicans voted in favor of an amendment that stripped $300 million in security assistance to Kyiv from the defense appropriations, as evidence that a GOP speaker would go against the majority of his party by bringing such legislation to the floor.

“According to the Hastert Rule, which Speaker McCarthy agreed to in January, you cannot use Democrats to roll a majority of the majority,” Gaetz said earlier this month, “certainly on something as consequential as Ukraine.”


Rep. Mike Johnson speaks during House Judiciary Committee field hearing (Photo: lev radin via Shutterstock)

Reporting | Washington Politics
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
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

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.