Connect with us

World News

Zelensky visit shows McCarthy walks ‘thin line’ on Ukraine aid on September 23, 2023 at 9:00 am

Published

on

Speaker Kevin McCarthy publicly gave a cold shoulder to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during his visit to Washington on Thursday, denying the wartime leader’s request to address Congress — but that’s not the whole story.

McCarthy’s allies said he’s committed to arming Ukraine, despite growing skepticism within his caucus. And Zelensky said the speaker delivered a similar message during their private meeting Thursday.

Zelensky’s visit highlighted the balancing act McCarthy faces on Ukraine, especially during a broader spending fight that has exposed the deep divides within his narrow majority.

Bill Monahan, senior director for policy at Foreign Policy for America, said McCarthy is walking a “thin line” between supporting Ukraine and appeasing a growing share of House Republicans disillusioned with the war.

Advertisement

“He wants to be supportive of Ukraine, but he also has to [address] this faction that is kind of disrupting U.S. policy,” said Monahan. “I think he’s trying to keep his eye on what really matters, which is the Ukraine supplemental. He’s trying to hold together the bipartisan support for that.”

But Monahan argued that if McCarthy continues to push the Ukraine issue aside, it could lend more power to skeptical House Republicans.

“This remains a very vocal minority, but it may be getting larger,” he said. “McCarthy is going to have to step up and help make the case for this aid and its wider implications for national security.”

While Zelensky addressed the majority of the Senate during his Thursday visit to Capitol Hill, he only met with a bipartisan group of senior leaders in the House.

Advertisement

McCarthy denied a chance for Zelensky to address Congress jointly because they “didn’t have time,” which effectively blocked the Ukrainian leader from even trying to convince critics in the House to approve more aid.

Still, McCarthy appears to have had a positive meeting with Zelensky. The pair posed for pictures, and Zelensky himself said McCarthy showed support for future Ukraine aid.

“I started my day in the American Capitol with Congress, with very frank, detailed conversations,” Zelensky said in a video message posted on X. “I felt trust.”

In turn, McCarthy told reporters on Thursday he had a good discussion with Zelensky over his concerns about accountability of U.S. weapons and battlefield developments.

Advertisement

Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said McCarthy asked questions to help convince his colleagues that the Ukraine war was winnable, according to the New York Times.

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), chair of the same House panel, said the Zelensky meeting went well and that despite the skeptics in the House, he expects the majority will support another Ukraine package.

But McCaul said supporters have to do a better job of arguing why it’s important to support Ukraine.

“We have to explain why it’s a national security issue and whatever happens in Ukraine directly impacts Taiwan,” McCaul told reporters. “This is a great power struggle with Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, against the West.”

Advertisement

That might be an uphill battle. More than two dozen GOP lawmakers sent a letter to President Biden ahead of Zelensky’s visit, vowing to oppose further Ukraine aid.

For the moment, with the House unable to agree on government spending bills, Ukraine aid is on the backburner. And McCarthy appears unwilling to make Ukraine a priority or publicly show more enthusiasm on the issue.

After the Zelensky meeting, McCarthy demurred when asked about including Ukraine funding in a continuing resolution, stressing there were other priorities to immediately fund, like the border.

“I’m more than willing to look at that,” he told reporters of Ukraine aid, “but one thing I know is if the president’s only focused on that while you got 10,000 people coming across the border, and he wants to ignore that? I think there are priorities.”

Advertisement

Jordan Cohen, defense and foreign policy analyst for the conservative Cato Institute, said McCarthy has shown he is supportive of Ukraine but only so far as it doesn’t threaten his speakership.

If McCarthy had allowed Zelensky to address Congress, he would have broadcast “a very clear statement” that he supports Ukraine, potentially angering conservative lawmakers in the House Freedom Caucus who oppose more aid.

“McCarthy has bigger things he wants to accomplish as speaker that don’t have to do with Ukraine,” Cohen said. “He doesn’t want to just shut down Zelensky and pretend like he doesn’t exist because again, at its core, I think McCarthy probably would want to get that aid.

“Beyond that, McCarthy doesn’t want to lose the speakership and to not lose the speakership means to keep the Freedom Caucus behind him,” he added.

Advertisement

Even smaller amounts of Ukraine aid is already becoming a major problem in the House. McCarthy on Friday said he would remove the $300 million for Ukraine in a defense appropriations bill and will instead hold a separate vote on the funding.

That move may have been designed to appease critics who voted against the defense appropriations bill on Thursday. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) was among the lawmakers who opposed the legislation because it contained Ukraine aid.

McCarthy’s position is increasingly contrasting with the Senate, where the vast majority of lawmakers are wholly supportive of continuing to back Ukraine.

To underscore the dire need of supporting Ukraine, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) shared a quote from Zelensky in his remarks after the meeting: “If we don’t get the aid, we will lose the war.”

Advertisement

And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has also emphatically backed supporting Ukraine, a position he emphasized after the Zelensky meeting, saying Ukraine aid was not charity but an “an investment in our own direct interests” and national security.

Cohen, from the Cato Institute, said concerned House Republicans have legitimate questions about Ukraine aid, including how more funds will help toward the goal of accomplishing the Biden administration’s end-game in Ukraine, as well as greater transparency on weapons transfers. 

However, Cohen explained there is an opportunity for McCarthy to get critics on board if there are clear answers to those questions.

“Long term, that may be how McCarthy gets [skeptical] House Republicans to not necessarily support Ukraine aid, but to not threaten his speakership over it,” Cohen said.

Advertisement

​ Speaker Kevin McCarthy publicly gave a cold shoulder to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during his visit to Washington on Thursday, denying the wartime leader’s request to address Congress — but that’s not the whole story. McCarthy’s allies said he’s committed to arming Ukraine, despite growing skepticism within his caucus. And Zelensky said the speaker delivered a similar message… 

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

US May Completely Cut Income Tax Due to Tariff Revenue

Published

on

President Donald Trump says the United States might one day get rid of federal income tax because of money the government collects from tariffs on imported goods. Tariffs are extra taxes the U.S. puts on products that come from other countries.

What Trump Is Saying

Trump has said that tariff money could become so large that it might allow the government to cut income taxes “almost completely.” He has also talked about possibly phasing out income tax over the next few years if tariff money keeps going up.

How Taxes Work Now

Right now, the federal government gets much more money from income taxes than from tariffs. Income taxes bring in trillions of dollars each year, while tariffs bring in only a small part of that total. Because of this gap, experts say tariffs would need to grow by many times to replace income tax money.

Questions From Experts

Many economists and tax experts doubt that tariffs alone could pay for the whole federal budget. They warn that very high tariffs could make many imported goods more expensive for shoppers in the United States. This could hit lower- and middle‑income families hardest, because they spend a big share of their money on everyday items.

What Congress Must Do

The president can change some tariffs, but only Congress can change or end the federal income tax. That means any real plan to remove income tax would need new laws passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. So far, there is no detailed law or full budget plan on this idea.

What It Means Right Now

For now, Trump’s comments are a proposal, not a change in the law. People and businesses still have to pay federal income tax under the current rules. The debate over using tariffs instead of income taxes is likely to continue among lawmakers, experts, and voters.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Epstein Files to Be Declassified After Trump Order

Published

on


Former President Donald Trump has signed an executive order directing federal agencies to declassify all government files related to Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier whose death in 2019 continues to fuel controversy and speculation.

The order, signed Wednesday at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, instructs the FBI, Department of Justice, and intelligence agencies to release documents detailing Epstein’s network, finances, and alleged connections to high-profile figures. Trump described the move as “a step toward transparency and public trust,” promising that no names would be shielded from scrutiny.

“This information belongs to the American people,” Trump said in a televised statement. “For too long, powerful interests have tried to bury the truth. That ends now.”

U.S. intelligence officials confirmed that preparations for the release are already underway. According to sources familiar with the process, the first batch of documents is expected to be made public within the next 30 days, with additional releases scheduled over several months.

Reactions poured in across the political spectrum. Supporters praised the decision as a bold act of accountability, while critics alleged it was politically motivated, timed to draw attention during a volatile election season. Civil rights advocates, meanwhile, emphasized caution, warning that some records could expose private victims or ongoing legal matters.

The Epstein case, which implicated figures in politics, business, and entertainment, remains one of the most talked-about scandals of the past decade. Epstein’s connections to influential individuals—including politicians, royals, and executives—have long sparked speculation about the extent of his operations and who may have been involved.

Advertisement

Former federal prosecutor Lauren Fields said the release could mark a turning point in public discourse surrounding government transparency. “Regardless of political stance, this declassification has the potential to reshape how Americans view power and accountability,” Fields noted.

Officials say redactions may still occur to protect sensitive intelligence or personal information, but the intent is a near-complete disclosure. For years, critics of the government’s handling of Epstein’s case have accused agencies of concealing evidence or shielding elites from exposure. Trump’s order promises to change that narrative.

As anticipation builds, journalists, legal analysts, and online commentators are preparing for what could be one of the most consequential information releases in recent history.

Continue Reading

Politics

Netanyahu’s UN Speech Triggers Diplomatic Walkouts and Mass Protests

Published

on

What Happened at the United Nations

On Friday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United Nations General Assembly in New York City, defending Israel’s ongoing military operations in Gaza. As he spoke, more than 100 delegates from over 50 countries stood up and left the chamber—a rare and significant diplomatic walkout. Outside the UN, thousands of protesters gathered to voice opposition to Netanyahu’s policies and call for accountability, including some who labeled him a war criminal. The protest included activists from Palestinian and Jewish groups, along with international allies.

Why Did Delegates and Protesters Walk Out?

The walkouts and protests were a response to Israel’s continued offensive in Gaza, which has resulted in widespread destruction and a significant humanitarian crisis. Many countries and individuals have accused Israel of excessive use of force, and some international prosecutors have suggested Netanyahu should face investigation by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, including claims that starvation was used as a weapon against civilians. At the same time, a record number of nations—over 150—recently recognized the State of Palestine, leaving the United States as the only permanent UN Security Council member not to join them.

International Reaction and Significance

The diplomatic walkouts and street protests demonstrate increasing global concern over the situation in Gaza and growing support for Palestinian statehood. Several world leaders, including Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro, showed visible solidarity with protesters. Petro called for international intervention and, controversially, for US troops not to follow orders he viewed as supporting ongoing conflict. The US later revoked Petro’s visa over his role in the protests, which he argued was evidence of a declining respect for international law.

BILATERAL MEETING WITH THE PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL Photo credit: Matty STERN/U.S. Embassy Jerusalem

Why Is This News Important?

The Gaza conflict is one of the world’s most contentious and closely-watched issues. It has drawn strong feelings and differing opinions from governments, activists, and ordinary people worldwide. The United Nations, as an international organization focused on peace and human rights, is a key arena for these debates. The events surrounding Netanyahu’s speech show that many nations and voices are urging new action—from recognition of Palestinian rights to calls for sanctions against Israel—while discussion and disagreement over the best path forward continue.

This episode at the UN highlights how international diplomacy, public protests, and official policy are all intersecting in real time as the search for solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains urgent and unresolved.

Continue Reading

Trending

Subscribe for the updates!