House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, recently made a significant decision as the new head of the House GOP. He aligned himself with Republicans who are advocating for withholding aid to Ukraine in order to use it as a bargaining chip for increased U.S. border security. This divisive issue has split Republicans in the House, and to a lesser extent, in the Senate.
However, this decision poses a risk of a confrontation with the White House and Democrats, who are united in supporting Ukraine and cautioning that withdrawing support will only embolden other authoritarian governments worldwide. Johnson expressed concerns about the objective in Ukraine, stating that the White House has failed to provide clarity on this matter.
Johnson specifically mentioned the efforts of a group of House Republicans, led by Reps. Mike Garcia and Dan Crenshaw, who have proposed a “grand bargain”: Ukraine would only receive aid if the administration agrees to GOP-approved changes to border security, such as modifying the asylum process. Crenshaw described this as a “win-win” situation for both parties.
During an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity, Johnson did not explicitly endorse Crenshaw and Garcia’s proposed bargain, but his concerns mirrored theirs. Johnson submitted a list of public questions from Garcia to national security adviser Jake Sullivan, focusing on the potential cost to the U.S. of assisting Ukraine and the progress of the Ukrainian counteroffensive.
While the White House has proposed a $106 billion supplemental spending bill that includes aid for Ukraine, Israel, and allies in the Indo-Pacific region, as well as increased border security, House Republicans are opposed to this. Instead, they plan to propose $14 billion in stand-alone aid for Israel, without specifying if any conditions would be attached to the funds.
Ukraine has been a contentious topic among House Republicans. Initially, most Republicans supported the country at the beginning of the conflict, but with former President Donald Trump echoing Moscow’s rhetoric that further support could lead to larger conflicts, most Republicans now oppose additional aid. Votes on the House floor in September showed a nearly even split within the party.
Some Republicans who oppose aid to Ukraine may be using this stance as a negotiating strategy. Rep. Tom Cole argued that opponents of aid should not be asked to vote for something they dislike without an opportunity to vote for something they support. Although he wouldn’t personally craft the deal proposed by Crenshaw and Garcia, he would support it.
However, for a White House and a party that view both Israel and Ukraine as democratic partners in the fight against authoritarians, such political horse-trading may be unacceptable. Rep. Steny Hoyer emphasized that assistance to Ukraine has broad bipartisan support and is not a political issue.
Nevertheless, the White House has already made concessions to Republicans by including $13.6 billion in the supplemental spending proposal for additional border patrol agents, immigration judges, and asylum officers. Rep. Michael McCaul believes this is insufficient and wants to see the reinstatement of the controversial “Remain in Mexico” policy.
As Ukraine prepares for the challenging muddy season and the Russian army continues to bomb civilian targets in what is alleged to be a war crime, support for Ukraine becomes increasingly crucial. Advocates for both Israel and Ukraine argue that aid for these countries should not be pitted against each other, as they both require assistance to defend themselves and prevent further conflict.
