Follow us on social

Biden Zelenskyy

The sky is falling: Officials say no more money for Ukraine

OMB claims the well runs dry by Dec. 31 if Congress doesn’t act immediately

Reporting | QiOSK

The Biden administration issued a stark warning to House and Senate leaders on Monday, telling them that U.S. aid for Kyiv would run out by the end of 2023 if Congress does not pass the White House’s proposed emergency supplemental package, which includes about $61 billion for Ukraine.

“We are out of money to support Ukraine in this fight. This isn’t a next year problem,” concludes a letter sent by Shalanda Young, the director of the Office of Management and Budget. “The time to help a democratic Ukraine fight against Russian aggression is right now. It is time for Congress to act.”

Aid for Ukraine has been hanging in the balance since Republicans took control of the House in January of this year, with assistance for Kyiv being left out of two short-term government funding packages.

Despite the urgent tone in the OMB’s letter, it isn’t quite clear how much money is left in the coffers for Ukraine. As RS’s Connor Echols reported in October even the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee admitted at the time that he did not have “100% clarity” on what remained.

Nevertheless, Young’s letter claims that the Department of Defense has spent 97% of the funds it has received from Congress to date, and that the State Department has exhausted the $4.7 billion it has received for military assistance.

Young argues that the remaining funds are rapidly running out.

“Cutting off the flow of U.S. weapons and equipment will kneecap Ukraine on the battlefield, not only putting at risk the gains Ukraine has made, but increasing the likelihood of Russian military victories,” reads the letter. “If our assistance stops, it will cause significant issues for Ukraine. While our allies around the world have stepped up to do more, U.S. support is critical and cannot be replicated by others.”

The OMB director also doubled down on the Biden administration's recent pivot that funding Ukraine’s defense is also a boon to American jobs. “While we cannot predict exactly which U.S companies will be awarded new contracts, we do know the funding will be used to acquire advanced capabilities to defend against attacks on civilians in Israel and Ukraine — for example, air defense systems built in Alabama, Texas, and Georgia and vital subcomponents sourced from nearly all 50 states,” Young wrote.

As the Quincy Institute’s Bill Hartung recently wrote in RS, foreign military aid is not an effective jobs program. “There are many ways to create more and better jobs without resorting to increased weapons spending,” said Hartung. “Virtually any other form of government outlay, or even a tax cut, yields greater employment than military spending.”

Despite the Biden administration’s urgent plea, a series of obstacles stand in the way of the supplemental appropriations making their way to the president’s desk.

In the Senate — which has overwhelmingly supported Ukraine aid so far — negotiations over the spending package are reportedly held up by disagreements over border security, which Senate Republicans maintain must be included in the final language. Politico’s Burgess Everett reported on Monday that talks have “moved in the wrong direction” in the last week, with some Democrats saying talks have fallen apart.

Even if the Senate manages to reach a compromise, the path promises to be more complicated in the House, where a growing number of Republicans are skeptical of how money is being spent and whether the Biden administration has a strategy for bringing the war to an end. A number of House Republicans have pledged to oppose what they consider another “blank check” for Kyiv.

Like his predecessor Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), new House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has sent mixed messages on his stance. As a rank-and-file member, Johnson consistently voted against further funding for Ukraine, but his rhetoric since assuming the Speakership suggests a change in opinion.

In late November, he said that he was “confident and optimistic” that Congress would be able to get a package that includes aid for Ukraine and Israel as well as funding for border security “over the line" before the end of the calendar year.

"Of course, we can’t allow Vladimir Putin to march through Europe, and we understand the necessity of assisting there," he added at an event in Sarasota, Florida. "What we've said is that if there is to be additional assistance to Ukraine, which most members of Congress believe is important, we have to also work in changing our own border policy."

But Johnson also reportedly recently warned Senators that he does not have the votes in the House to pass Biden’s supplemental package. More than 100 House Republicans voted against the last Ukraine aid package, and counting on Democratic votes to pass controversial legislation could have political consequences for the Speaker.

Despite these hurdles, Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) maintains that he wants to bring the package to the floor this week. Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) has said he would filibuster the legislation if no border deal is reached.


Photo credit: President Joe Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy talk at the Walk of the Brave, Monday, February 20, 2023, during an unannounced visit to Kyiv, Ukraine. (Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz)
Reporting | QiOSK
Kim Jong Un
Top photo credit: North Korean leader Kim Jong Un visits the construction site of the Ragwon County Offshore Farm, North Korea July 13, 2025. KCNA via REUTERS

Kim Jong Un is nuking up and playing hard to get

Asia-Pacific

President Donald Trump’s second term has so far been a series of “shock and awe” campaigns both at home and abroad. But so far has left North Korea untouched even as it arms for the future.

The president dramatically broke with precedent during his first term, holding two summits as well as a brief meeting at the Demilitarized Zone with the North’s Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un. Unfortunately, engagement crashed and burned in Hanoi. The DPRK then pulled back, essentially severing contact with both the U.S. and South Korea.

keep readingShow less
Why new CENTCOM chief Brad Cooper is as wrong as the old one
Top photo credit: U.S. Navy Vice Admiral Brad Cooper speaks to guests at the IISS Manama Dialogue in Manama, Bahrain, November 17, 2023. REUTERS/Hamad I Mohammed

Why new CENTCOM chief Brad Cooper is as wrong as the old one

Middle East

If accounts of President Donald Trump’s decision to strike Iranian nuclear facilities this past month are to be believed, the president’s initial impulse to stay out of the Israel-Iran conflict failed to survive the prodding of hawkish advisers, chiefly U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) chief Michael Kurilla.

With Kurilla, an Iran hawk and staunch ally of both the Israeli government and erstwhile national security adviser Mike Waltz, set to leave office this summer, advocates of a more restrained foreign policy may understandably feel like they are out of the woods.

keep readingShow less
Putin Trump
Top photo credit: Vladimir Putin (Office of the President of the Russian Federation) and Donald Trump (US Southern Command photo)

How Trump's 50-day deadline threat against Putin will backfire

Europe

In the first six months of his second term, President Donald Trump has demonstrated his love for three things: deals, tariffs, and ultimatums.

He got to combine these passions during his Oval Office meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on Monday. Only moments after the two leaders announced a new plan to get military aid to Ukraine, Trump issued an ominous 50-day deadline for Russian President Vladimir Putin to agree to a ceasefire. “We're going to be doing secondary tariffs if we don't have a deal within 50 days,” Trump told the assembled reporters.

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.