Future Ukraine aid faces bumpier road in House Republican majority

Republican divisions on foreign policy and aid could become more consequential if Republicans win control of the House in the midterm elections, creating a rockier road for future humanitarian or military assistance to Ukraine.

The GOP is widely projected to win control of the lower chamber in this year’s elections, which would give the “America First” wing of the party that is resistant to foreign intervention a larger voice and potentially more power. 

Uncertainty remains about the course of the war and how much more aid Ukraine will request from the U.S., but many expect the issue to come up again at some point. Republicans have been broadly supportive of Ukraine, but questions over everything from how the aid is being used to whether nonmilitary aid is warranted have spanned from the party’s fringes to the conservative mainstream.

“Unless Russia decides to pack up and head home, I suspect that there are going to be continued requests,” Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, said. 

“We all want to help. At the same time, you know, we’ve got problems in our own country that remain unresolved, and we have no idea what the administration’s plan is. Like, what’s the end state? Where are we headed?” Perry said. “Are our tax dollars being used wisely?”

In May, 11 Republican senators and 57 House Republicans — a quarter of the House Republican Conference — opposed a $40 billion security supplemental for Ukraine. 

The loudest criticism to Ukrainian funding has come from the outspoken right flank of the conference. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) tweeted last month that President Biden “needs to understand that we are the USA not the US-ATM,” and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has been against “every ounce” of spending to Ukraine.

In a break from some past hawkish tendencies, Heritage Action, the advocacy arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation, came out against the $40 billion May package. 

“Ukraine Aid Package Puts America Last,” the Heritage Action statement’s title read, arguing that the spending was “reckless,” “without any accountability” and diverted funds away from other priorities like the U.S.-Mexico border and crime.

Garrett Bess, vice president of Heritage Action, said that the group’s position is not necessarily that the U.S. should not send any aid.

“I mean, when does this end?” Bess said. “If Ukraine and Russia keep up a conflict for two, three, four years, are we going to be expected to send $50 billion a quarter to keep the conflict going?”

Asked about Heritage Action’s opposition to the aid package in a press conference last month, House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) noted a sense among Republicans of wanting more accountability.

“I think what you’re seeing is there are a lot of members that want to see more accountability in the Department of Defense and more of a focus on the threats that are out there,” Scalise said.

He did not commit to keeping the same level of financial support for Ukraine in the future.

Concerned Veterans of America, which is part of the network funded by billionaire conservative donor Charles Koch, has also been wary of U.S. aid to Ukraine. A September poll sponsored by the group found that 54 percent of Americans said the U.S. should only provide aid to Ukraine if Europeans match that support.

John Byrnes, deputy director of Concerned Veterans for America, criticized the quality of care from the Department of Veterans Affairs and said his group would “welcome a new Congress with a majority that would focus on America’s veterans, rather than on supporting a war abroad.”

Polls find majorities of Americans supportive of the U.S. providing weapons to Ukraine, with an Oct. 4-5 poll from Ipsos finding 66 percent support for providing weapons and 59 percent support for providing financial aid.

But a Pew Research survey last month found that support among Republicans for providing U.S. support to Ukraine has diminished. In March, 9 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning adults said the U.S. was providing too much support to Ukraine. That shot up to 32 percent in September.

Varying critiques of aid have come across the House GOP spectrum.

Another $12.3 billion in aid was tacked on to a stopgap government funding bill that passed in September, and all but 10 House Republicans opposed it mostly due to being locked out of negotiations and because the funding only lasted until December.

The Republican Study Committee, the largest conservative caucus in the House, critiqued the Ukraine funding supplemental portion by saying that most of the $12.2 billion to Ukraine was for humanitarian aid rather than military aid.

Heritage Action’s position surprised Luke Coffey, a senior fellow analyzing national security at the conservative Hudson Institute who had then been at the Heritage Foundation for a decade and was arguing in favor of funding to Ukraine.

“I think that there’s a very small but vocal segment of the Republican Party who take these more isolationist, restraint views on U.S. engagement in the world,” Coffey said. “We have to be a little more sophisticated in our approach to foreign policy.”

“One of the ironies here is that Trump was the first president to finally give Javelin weapons to Ukraine. And in the case of Georgia, another country that Russia partially occupies, he gave Stingers and Javelin missiles,” Coffey said “He did something in eight months that Obama wouldn’t do in eight years.”

A Georgian friend, Coffey said, remarked at the time that Trump’s willingness to give weapons to partners rather than aiming to engage with adversaries like Iran and Russia was an expression of America First foreign policy.

“Those who are calling for us to just narrowly give military support failed to see the bigger picture of the crisis in Ukraine,” Coffey said. “We have to want Ukraine to win more than we hope Russia will lose.”

House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) has also called on the Biden administration to “finally provide longer-range artillery” to Ukraine and for allies to transfer additional systems to Ukraine.

Asked if he expected House GOP leadership in a majority to adequately address concerns about keeping any aid accountable, Perry said: “They better. … That’s why it’s called leadership.”

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said in a statement that there is “strategic value” for the U.S. to stand with allies, but that it should do so “responsibly” and have a “robust debate” on U.S. strategy in the country. 

“It’s indefensible for the Biden administration to ask for never-ending billion-dollar blank checks to Ukraine, while the American people struggle with sky-high inflation, and the national debt surpasses $31 trillion. Too many of my colleagues — even on my side of the aisle — are willing to green-light more unpaid-for spending without rigorous oversight or accountability so they can sport a blue and yellow lapel pin,” Roy said.