As he excoriated Kevin McCarthy over his leadership of the House Republican conference last week, hard-right congressman Matt Gaetz accused the then speaker of cutting a “secret side deal” with Joe Biden to provide additional funding to Ukraine amid its ongoing war against Russia.
“It is becoming increasingly clear who the speaker of the House already works for, and it’s not the Republican conference,” Gaetz, who represents a solidly Republican district in Florida, said in a floor speech at the time.
The day after Gaetz delivered that speech, McCarthy was out of a job, becoming the first House speaker in US history ever to be ejected from office. Although McCarthy denied the existence of a side deal, Gaetz’s complaints underscored how funding for Ukraine served as one of the thorniest issues during the former speaker’s brief and contentious tenure.
As Donald Trump’s “America First” philosophy has gained popularity among Republicans, anti-Ukraine sentiment has spread through the party’s base and now into the halls of Congress. Even as bipartisan support for Ukraine remains robust in the Senate, a majority of the House Republican conference appears skeptical if not outright hostile to the idea of more funding.
That dynamic has further complicated House Republicans’ already difficult task of electing a new speaker, as any speaker candidate must negotiate with hard-right lawmakers who adamantly oppose more funding for Kyiv. Those lawmakers have made Ukraine funding a top priority in the search for a new speaker, and that tension raises serious questions about whether Congress will be able to approve another aid package, especially now that much of their attention has shifted to the war between Israel and Hamas. If lawmakers cannot pass more funding, Ukraine supporters warn the consequences could be deadly.
“This is critical to the war effort for Ukraine, which is then critical to the defense of Europe and, I think, critical to US national security,” said Max Bergmann, the director of the Europe, Russia and Eurasia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). “If Congress doesn’t act now, then a lot of Ukrainians are going to die.”
The rising opposition to funding Ukraine among Republicans appears to be a direct response to Trump’s approach to foreign policy, which has resonated deeply with the more isolationist faction of his party. That philosophy has frustrated establishment Republicans, who embrace the party’s traditional vision of diplomacy, remembering the days of Ronald Reagan using the country’s military and economic might to fight communism abroad.
“Republicans once stood against communism and thugs like Vladimir Putin, but it’s a shame that not every Republican is speaking out against what Russia is doing to Ukraine,” said Gunner Ramer, a spokesperson for the group Republicans for Ukraine.
Ramer’s group, which is a project of the anti-Trump conservative group Defending Democracy Together, often conducts focus groups with Republican voters. Those discussions have seen an increase in anti-Ukraine sentiment in recent months, Ramer said, and polling confirms that trend.
According to a CBS News/YouGov poll conducted last month, only 39% of Republicans now believe the US should send weapons to Ukraine, representing a 10-point drop in support since February. On the question of sending aid and supplies to Ukraine, 50% of Republicans support the idea while 50% oppose it. In contrast, 86% of Democrats and 63% of independent voters support sending aid and supplies to Ukraine.
“I think it’s a top-down thing. We recognize that Donald Trump has overtaken the Republican party,” Ramer said. “What Donald Trump tapped into is this isolationist bit of the Republican party, and I think that that is affecting how Republican voters approach the issue.”
When the House voted last month on a bill to provide $300m in funding for a program to train and equip Ukrainian fighters, a majority of the Republican conference – 117 members – opposed the legislation. The vote represented a crucial tipping point, as hard-right lawmakers like Gaetz have implored leaders to block any bill that does not have the support of a majority of the Republican conference.
In a statement explaining his opposition to the bill, the congressman John Curtis of Utah, a Republican who had previously showed support for Ukraine, called on the Biden administration to articulate a clear strategy for defeating Russia and to specify how funds were being used.
“I support Ukraine in their war,” Curtis said. “I support continued funding for their efforts, but these are basic questions any organization would ask in a transaction. To continue spending Utahans taxpayer dollars, Congress must receive assurances to these questions.”
Ukraine still has support from many lawmakers of both parties in Congress, who have helped deliver more than $100bn in aid to Kyiv since the start of the war. But the rising opposition to Ukraine among House Republicans specifically, combined with the party’s razor-thin majority in the lower chamber, has made it all the more difficult for any speaker to lead the conference – as McCarthy knows all too well.
Although McCarthy has been supportive of Ukraine aid, he used the power of his speakership to secure some wins for the “America First” contingent of his conference. When the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, visited Capitol Hill last month, McCarthy denied him the opportunity to deliver a joint address to Congress.
As Congress scrambled late last month to avoid a government shutdown, McCarthy introduced a stopgap spending bill that included no additional funding for Ukraine. The Senate version of the stopgap bill, which was ultimately shelved in favor of McCarthy’s proposal, had included $6bn in Ukraine aid, and that was already well below the $24bn requested by Biden in August.
after newsletter promotion
Those concessions were not enough to sway the eight House Republicans, including Gaetz, who collaborated with Democrats to oust McCarthy last week. Now Republicans must unite around a new speaker, and that process is proving even more arduous than expected.
On Wednesday, Steve Scalise, the House majority leader, won his conference’s nomination, defeating the judiciary committee chair Jim Jordan. Scalise’s victory may have come as a relief to Ukraine supporters, given that Jordan had already signaled he would not support another aid package. Scalise, on the other hand, received a grade of B on Republicans for Ukraine’s lawmaker report card.
Then, on Thursday evening, Scalise abruptly dropped out of the race due to opposition from some of the same hard-right lawmakers, who have also embraced anti-Ukraine views. After the ouster of McCarthy and the rapid downfall of Scalise, Ramer fears that the successful maneuvers staged by hard-right lawmakers might intimidate some of the pro-Ukraine Republicans in the House.
“I do have a concern that a lot of even rank-and-file Republicans are going to look at what happened to McCarthy and be afraid to alienate this isolationist part of the Republican party,” Ramer said.
Ukraine supporters have suggested a number of ideas to ease the passage of another aid package through Congress, such as including the money in a broader bill providing funding for Taiwan and border security. With House Republicans eager to approve more funding for Israel following the Hamas attacks last weekend, members of both parties proposed a joint Ukraine-Israel aid package.
Hard-right lawmakers have staunchly opposed the idea of a Ukraine-Israel package, but such a bill could provide some political cover for the next Republican speaker, Bergmann noted.
“It gives a new speaker the opportunity to say that their hands were tied, and they have to bring this to the floor and essentially get Ukraine funding over the line, without being seen as betraying the far right,” Bergmann said.
Another idea floated by some Ukraine supporters in Congress, including the Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, involves passing a much larger aid package to support Kyiv through next year – thus avoiding another drawn-out fight on the issue until after the 2024 elections.
“You just want to make this done through this political cycle, and then you can approach it again during the lame-duck session,” Bergmann said. “[It] makes all the sense in the world. Frankly, to not do that is crazy.”
The clock is ticking. Ukraine cannot indefinitely continue its current efforts without more aid, and a prolonged delay could imperil its military and humanitarian missions. If that happens, Bergmann suggested, the hard-right Republicans who oppose Ukraine aid may soon start to see the political tide turn against them, which could prompt a change of their hearts.
“The ads sort of write themselves,” Bergmann said. “When there’s imagery of Ukrainian cities getting pummeled, the ads will be: these people caused this, and they have blood on their hands.”
Source: US Politics - theguardian.com
