Follow us on social

google cta
Wait, how much Ukraine aid money does the US have left?

Wait, how much Ukraine aid money does the US have left?

A shutdown-avoiding compromise forced Congress to strip an additional $6 billion in funds for Kyiv.

Reporting | Europe
google cta
google cta

Exactly how much money does the U.S. have left for Ukraine? After nearly two years of conflict and $113 billion in appropriations, it’s a more complicated question than one might expect.

“We have time, not much time, and there’s an overwhelming sense of urgency,” President Joe Biden said Sunday after the House avoided a government shutdown by blocking $4.5 billion in military aid and $1.5 billion in humanitarian support for Ukraine, which the Senate had already approved.

With anti-Ukraine aid Republicans threatening to revolt in the House, Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) will now have to decide whether to risk losing his speakership in order to get new money for Kyiv through Congress (with Democratic help). But it remains unclear whether that funding is as desperately needed as Democrats now claim.

One important point is that the debate today centers around military aid, not humanitarian support. When it comes to economic aid, the Biden administration still has access to at least $23 billion in uncommitted funds, according to the Kiel Institute, which recently estimated that the U.S. has only used $27.3 billion of the $50 billion Congress allocated for humanitarian and financial aid. (One potential wrinkle is whether those funds are limited to fiscal year 2023, meaning that the administration could have already lost access to this money.)

The biggest question surrounding humanitarian aid is why the U.S. has been slow in doling it out. One reason for the more gradual approach to the economic aid is potential corruption in Ukraine, which the Biden administration quietly views as a major problem, according to a strategy document leaked to Politico on Monday.

As John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, told RS earlier this year, “when you pour that much money in, even if it's the most noble cause in the world, you can't help but waste a lot.”

The military situation is more complex. As Defense News recently reported, the White House has run out of one key funding stream: the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which is the program that allows the Pentagon to contract with American weapons makers to build new weapons that will help build up Kyiv’s military in the long-term. In other words, the effort to bolster Ukraine’s forces for a long fight is now on hold until Congress appropriates new money.

In the near-term, the Biden administration has been far less clear about the resources at its disposal. While our own tracker, which is based exclusively on Department of Defense press releases, shows that the U.S. only has about $1.5 billion in funds for sending surplus military equipment to Ukraine, the White House argues that an accounting error has left it with at least an extra $4 billion in “drawdown” money. (That error, it should be noted, has led to an ongoing investigation by the Pentagon’s inspector general.)

If the U.S. really does have $5.5 billion left in the coffers, then lawmakers are straining credulity when they argue that “there’s not enough money today” to help Ukraine in its fight against Russia. Even if the administration only has $1.5 billion left, the White House could send several more tranches of weapons before running out of funds.

The fact that the administration is raising so much concern about running out of money suggests that it feels pressure from Republicans who continue to raise questions about the Pentagon’s accounting error.

“I’m not necessarily opposed to supporting the Ukrainians further, but I am opposed to doing it at this point without some sort of explanation from the executive branch,” Rep. Mike Garcia (R-Calif.) said recently. “You can’t give a blank check to the executive branch.”


Photo credit: Ukrainian soldiers fire artillery at Russian targets in Donetsk on March 21, 2023. (Drop of Light/ Shutterstock)
google cta
Reporting | Europe
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.