As House and Senate leaders struggle to find a way to move a $96 billion foreign aid supplemental funding bill for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan that Speaker Mike Johnson has pledged he will not bring to a vote, former President Donald Trump may have thrown Johnson a lifeline or at least a fig leaf.
In early February, the Senate passed a bill containing military and economic assistance for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. The Ukraine portion of the bill came to about $60 billion. Speaker Johnson effectively declared the bill dead on arrival, saying the House would not address that bill until a border security bill was enacted.
$96 Billion Ukraine-Israel Assistance Bill Clears Major Senate Hurdle
House Speaker Mike Johnson Effectively Kills Senate Supplemental Ukraine Aid Bill
Despite laying down the marker, it was uncertain that Johnson had the political power to make it stick. There are at least 300 votes in the House for Ukraine aid. Johnson’s ploy appealed to about 80 GOP representatives who believe there isn’t enough money in the US budget to do border security and Ukraine and a handful who are obviously sympathetic to Putin’s claim that his invasion was warranted by Ukraine cozying up to the West. Put simply, Johnson did not have the votes necessary to kill the bill and a discharge petition involving the defection of dozens of Republicans to Hakeem Jeffries’s gambit would be fatal to his speakership.
Johnson has until after the Defense-Homeland Security “minibus” gets a vote on March 22 (Spoiler Alert: It will pass easily) to devise a face-saving way of moving the Urkaine foreign aid bill and avoiding humiliation.
House Foreign Affairs Chairman: Speaker Johnson Will Have to Move Ukraine Aid Bill
One of the plans is for Ukraine to receive foreign aid in the form of a loan.
Among the proposals being floated is treating some of the nonmilitary aid as a type of loan, said House Foreign Affairs Chairman Mike McCaul, R-Texas, who is involved in the discussions, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. Economic aid to support the general function of Ukraine’s government and its long-term rebuilding efforts would be subject to a loan under this plan. Russian assets seized by the U.S. government through sanctions could also be used as collateral for loans to the Ukrainians, McCaul said, adding that the plan could also have a generous repayment system to help Ukraine.
Offering up loans as part of the package is designed to help ease the concerns of House conservatives who have criticized billions in U.S. aid for Ukraine and said they will not support sending further U.S. taxpayer dollars without a long-term plan to win the war.
McCaul went on to say, “We’re looking at two factors. One is my REPO Act, which will allow us to attach assets related to the Russian sovereign assets that have been sanctioned to help pay for Russia’s war crimes. That’s a very popular idea in the House. And secondly, the loan program. … At the end of the day, the Russian sovereign assets would pay for that or they would just default.”
On a Meet the Press segment aired today, South Carolina Lindsey Graham gave Trump credit for the nascent deal. On February 10, Trump posted on Truth Social, “FROM THIS POINT FORWARD, ARE YOU LISTENING U.S. SENATE(?), NO MONEY IN THE FORM OF FOREIGN AID UNLESS IT IS DONE AS A LOAN, NOT JUST A GIVEAWAY.” (Read the whole post here.)
The segment is cued up to the below conversation.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let’s move on to Ukraine, Senator–
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM:
Right.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You have always supported aid to Ukraine.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM:
Yeah–
KRISTEN WELKER:
You’ve argued it’s critical–
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM:
Yeah. Yeah.
KRISTEN WELKER:
–to keeping Putin from invading–
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM:
Yeah.
KRISTEN WELKER:
–its NATO allies. Now, Former President Trump has said that he would only support it if it came in the form of a loan. And that’s not typically how the United States supports our allies. Why do you think that’s the best course of action right now, Senator?
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM:
We’re $34 trillion in debt. Nobody wants to help Ukraine more than I do. But President Trump is trying to do two things here: help an ally but tell the American people, “Pay us back if you can.” I think most Americans would like to help Ukraine. But the idea of giving and never being repaid should be off the table. He mentioned this to me, I think, playing golf. “Why don’t we make it a loan?” Well, we did that in World War II with Britain. So, when you’re $34 trillion in debt, you need to be thinking about the American people, just not allies. So, I think the loan is the way to get the aid to Ukraine. He will be speaking, President Trump, to the speaker tomorrow or Tuesday about turning the aid into a loan. It’d be forgivable, no interest. They have tons of minerals in Ukraine. “You get back on your feet, try to pay us back.”
KRISTEN WELKER:
Trump told you he’s going to reach out to the speaker?
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM:
Yes.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Are you confident this is something that the White House would sign on to, given the fact that–
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM:
I can’t imagine–
KRISTEN WELKER:
–a loan
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM:
–any member of Congress would object to trying to get our allies to pay us back when we’re $34 trillion in debt if they can. We’re talking about a waivable, no-interest loan. But the idea of not changing when you’re this far in debt– I think most people would welcome it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me get you to respond to something that Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski had to say. She said the following about the influence of Former President Trump. Quote, “Let’s just not even exist as a Senate then if we have to ask permission from Donald Trump for everything we do. Let’s just do our work.” Is Donald Trump ultimately calling the shots in the Senate, Senator Graham?
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM:
No. I mean, I’ve voted against things that, you know, he doesn’t like. The point is, to Lisa: Would you support the idea that our allies should pay us back if they can when we’re $34 trillion in debt? This is America First in action. It’s not isolationism, but it is considering the needs of the American people. I hope to be going to Ukraine soon, and I hope to be able to tell them, “The aid is coming. It will be in the form of a loan. Pay us back if you can.” I want Russia to know: If you think Ukraine’s going to be out of this fight, you’re dead wrong.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You know, Senator Mitt Romney said that Ukraine’s economy has just been devastated, that there’s no possible way they’ll be able to–
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM:
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
KRISTEN WELKER:
–pay back a loan. What if they can’t pay back this loan, Senator?
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM:
Well, then we’re not – then it’ll be waivable, no interest. We’re not trying to make money here. We’re trying to protect the interest of the American people. They’re sitting on some of the most rich mineral deposits in the history of Europe. If they can get back on their feet with our help, see if they can pay us back. Same with Taiwan. So, Senator Romney, what’s wrong with asking people to pay us back, if they can?
Let me explain why this is what my Old Man would call “a hoodoo.” (See definition #4.)
An interest-free loan with no payment play and intended to be forgiven looks a lot like a grant. This verbal jujitsu may be enough to attract some Republicans facing a primary challenge, but a forgiven loan and a gift are indistinguishable in terms of budgetary impact.
The second reason why Trump’s proposal is a fig leaf to let Johnson send the foreign aid package up for a vote while looking like he “held the line” is the nature of the aid. The Ukrainian aid is $60 billion. Of that number, only about $10 billion can reasonably be turned into a loan. That would be the economic support package. The remainder of the $60 billion goes to the military services to replace weapons and ammunition from war stocks that are drawn down to resupply Ukraine. I suppose they could create a new system where Ukraine gets loans to use the Foreign Military Sales program, but that largely defeats the point of what is happening. Under FMS, Ukraine would get new items straight from the factory.
Donald Trump might possibly give Johnson a way to put the foreign aid bill up for a vote without having to walk back his ¡No pasarán!” statement. Even if that happens at the committee chairman level, there is no guarantee that’s what happens because the odds of the Democrats or White House giving Donald Trump a win like this in an election year approaches zero.
