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
Larijani's killing would destroy Iran war off-ramps for Trump
  • Mostafa Meraji / Wikimedia

Ali Larijani

Larijani's killing would destroy Iran war off-ramps for Trump

QiOSK

Why did Israel target Ali Larijani, and what are the implications if it is confirmed that he was killed?

I see three potential motivations behind the assassination attempt:

keep readingShow less
Senior US official resigns in protest of Iran war
Shutterstock/Ben Von Klemperer

Senior US official resigns in protest of Iran war

QiOSK

The intra-GOP debate over the Iran war has now reached inside the Trump administration, triggering the first senior-level resignation over the conflict.

Joe Kent, a former U.S. Army officer, resigned Tuesday from his position as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), saying in a letter that he could no longer “in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran.” Kent focused his blame on “high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media” for leading President Donald Trump down this dangerous path and deceiving him into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat and that a war could be won quickly and easily.

keep readingShow less
Iran Us airstrikes
Top photo credit: An Iranian couple carries a national flag as they walk past a police facility that is destroyed in an attack during a rally commemorating International Quds Day, also known as Jerusalem Day, in Tehran, Iran, on March 13, 2026, amid the U.S.-Israeli military campaign. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)
Trump's capture of Maduro and the rise of 'global mafia politics'

Trump's ill-fated attempt to copy Israel's 'mowing the grass' strategy

Global Crises

Two weeks into the Iran War, the Trump Administration remains mired in a conflict without a clear casus belli and without an articulated end state. President Donald Trump’s latest extra-constitutional use of military force is but the latest in an alarming trend: the Trump administration believes it has solved the “forever war” trap by attempting to divorce war from discrete political objectives.

Trump and his allies appear to have decided that, by blowing things up without a clear political end state in mind, they can advance U.S. geopolitical interests while avoiding a quagmire. In practice, this is little more than a global version of Israel’s “mowing the grass” strategy, in which periodic military campaigns substitute for political strategy. Now, this notion of war without politics is dragging the U.S. even deeper into the messy business of Middle Eastern affairs.

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.