Connect with us

World News

House GOP grows skeptical on Ukraine: ‘It’s not just the Freedom Caucus’ on September 15, 2023 at 9:30 am

Published

on

Skepticism is growing among House Republicans on the approval of more Ukraine funding as Congress faces its first test on America’s role in the war against Russia.

The House could face a vote as soon as this month as the Senate looks to fold a Ukraine aid package into a continuing resolution that would push back the deadline for a potential government shutdown.

While a minority wing of far-right lawmakers have long opposed more Ukraine funding, several GOP lawmakers told The Hill this week that more moderate House Republicans are also raising concerns.

“It’s not just the Freedom Caucus; I think there’s a lot of people that are concerned with funding,” said Rep. Lisa McClain (R-Mich.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee. “I think it all depends on what’s in the bill.”

Advertisement

McClain said she wanted Congress to focus the spending bills on keeping the federal government running and on domestic crises like the recent wildfires in Hawaii.

“We have the appropriations bills right that we need to get out,” she said. “That is super critical. But also what I’m more concerned about is disaster relief for the United States. That’s what our focus is on right now.”

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), a former chair of the House Freedom Caucus, said he would not support a new Ukraine package and doubted any Ukraine funding would be moving to the floor anytime soon.

But he was hesitant to say the opposition would ultimately have enough votes to stop approval of Ukraine aid.

Advertisement

“We’ve got a lot of war hawks in Congress,” he said, “so I’m not sure.”

Though the Republican opposition to U.S. military support for Ukraine has steadily grown over the past year and a half of the war — both in Congress and among voters — a majority of the GOP caucus and almost all Democrats have overwhelmingly passed previous spending packages for Kyiv. 

But the next vote on Ukraine aid will be the first on a major package since Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) took the gavel promising no more “blank checks” to Ukraine. 

The uneasiness in the House comes as the Senate plans to include Ukraine funding in a continuing resolution (CR) to keep the government funded as annual appropriations bills are worked out. 

Advertisement

If the House refuses to pass a CR with the Ukraine funding attached, it could be punted to later this year and attached to other spending bills or considered on its own. 

Punchbowl News reported this month that McCarthy does not want Ukraine funding in a CR but will move to pass it as a separate supplemental — but only if he wins additional funding for the border.

Congressional action is in response to President Biden’s August request for $24 billion to support Ukraine, including $13 billion in security assistance. Biden included the request as part of a $40 billion package that includes disaster relief funds.

The House is also ensnared in an impeachment inquiry into Biden, which may impact the spending talks. 

Advertisement

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), an Armed Services Committee member, said the House has “a lot of other issues ahead” of Ukraine funding. 

“Additional funding for Ukraine is going to be difficult to sell to the American people because every day that we go on fewer Americans support the war in Ukraine,” she said.

A CNN poll in August found a majority of Americans, 55 percent to 45 percent, oppose more aid to Ukraine, though that is split on party lines. About 71 percent of Republican respondents said the U.S. should not provide additional funding, according to the poll, while 62 percent of Democrats back more funding. 

Other polls, including a Reagan Institute poll over the summer, have indicated stronger support. An August Fox News poll found a growing number of Americans were skeptical of backing Ukraine but the plurality, or 40 percent, said support should stay the same.

Advertisement

The debate comes at a critical moment for Ukraine, which is struggling to gain ground in its counteroffensive launched earlier this summer and will need a steady supply of weaponry and equipment to stay in the fight.

Congress approved $113 billion in total aid for Ukraine last year, about $47 billion of which translated directly to supporting Ukraine’s military needs. 

But that pool of money is running out fast. It’s unclear how much money is left exactly because of the Pentagon’s massive accounting errors, but publicly available data shows about $44 billion has been spent so far, leaving just a few billion left. 

It’s not only Democrats who are pressuring the House GOP to get on board with new funding. 

Advertisement

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on the floor this month that skeptics of Ukraine aid were making “faulty arguments,” arguing the war was worth funding.

“Standing with our allies against [Russian President Vladimir Putin] is directly and measurably strengthening the U.S. military,” he said. “Our support to Ukraine is grinding down one of America’s biggest strategic adversaries.”

Since taking over the House in January, there has been a persistent fear among Ukraine’s supporters that Republicans will stymie more aid.

That bubbled to the surface in July, when 70 Republican lawmakers supported a failed bid to insert an amendment in a draft version of the annual defense bill that would have cut off all U.S. military funding to Ukraine.

Advertisement

Republican presidential candidates such as entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy and former President Trump are also giving voice to the growing skepticism showing up in polls. 

There’s also concern that Ukraine could be a casualty of McCarthy’s fraught relationship with the Freedom Caucus, which released a list of demands in August in order for members to back the spending bills. One of those positions was outright opposition to “any blank check for Ukraine in any supplemental appropriations bill.”

Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), a Freedom Caucus member, said he was hopeful McCarthy would keep Ukraine funding off the floor entirely. 

“We have other things that we need to resolve,” he said. “ The House needs to stay focused on funding the government.”

Advertisement

Davidson wrote Thursday on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, that he will oppose any future aid package to Ukraine “until the Biden administration provides Congress with a clear mission” in the war.

The Biden administration maintains that it has been clear on its goals in Ukraine.

White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan told reporters Wednesday that he doesn’t “know how many times I’ve answered this question in the last year and a half.”

“We want to see Ukraine succeed on the battlefield. We want to see them get all their territory back. We want to see their sovereignty respected,” Sullivan said. “We want to see no Russian troops inside Ukraine. We want to see the war end.” 

Advertisement

“And it could end today, obviously, if Mr. Putin would do the right thing and just get the hell out,” he added. “That’s clearly not going to happen right now.”

​ Skepticism is growing among House Republicans on the approval of more Ukraine funding as Congress faces its first test on America’s role in the war against Russia. The House could face a vote as soon as this month as the Senate looks to fold a Ukraine aid package into a continuing resolution that would push… 

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Politics

Will Kim Ju Ae Become North Korea’s First Female Leader?

Published

on

A New Face of Power in Pyongyang

In a country defined by secrecy and dynastic rule, the recent emergence of Kim Ju Ae—the daughter of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un—on the national and international stage has sparked intense speculation about the future of the world’s most isolated regime. For the first time since North Korea’s founding in 1948, the possibility of a female leader is being openly discussed, as state media and public ceremonies increasingly feature the teenage girl at her father’s side.

Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead

Kim Ju Ae’s Rise to Prominence

Kim Ju Ae, believed to be around 12 or 13 years old, first came to the world’s attention in 2013 when former NBA star Dennis Rodman revealed he had held Kim Jong Un’s daughter during a visit to Pyongyang. However, she remained out of the public eye until November 2022, when she appeared beside her father at the launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile—a powerful symbol in North Korean propaganda.

Since then, Ju Ae has become a regular fixture at high-profile events, from military parades and weapons launches to the grand opening of a water park and the unveiling of new naval ships. Her repeated appearances are unprecedented for a member of the Kim family so young, especially a girl, and have led South Korean intelligence officials to suggest she is being groomed as her father’s successor.

The Power of Propaganda

North Korea’s state media has shifted its language regarding Ju Ae, referring to her as “beloved” and, more recently, “respected”—a term previously reserved for the nation’s highest dignitaries. Analysts believe this is part of a carefully orchestrated campaign to build her public profile and legitimize her as a future leader, signaling continuity and stability for the regime.

Presenting Ju Ae as the face of the next generation serves several purposes:

  • Demonstrating dynastic continuity: By showcasing his daughter, Kim Jong Un assures elites and the public that the Kim family’s grip on power will persist.
  • Minimizing internal threats: A young female successor is less likely to attract rival factions or pose an immediate threat to the current leadership.
  • Projecting a modern image: Her presence at both military and civilian events signals adaptability and a potential shift in North Korea’s traditionally patriarchal leadership structure.

Breaking with Tradition?

If Ju Ae is indeed being positioned as the next leader, it would mark a historic break from North Korea’s deeply patriarchal system. The country has never had a female ruler, and its military and political elite remain overwhelmingly male. However, her growing public profile and the respect shown to her by senior officials suggest that the regime is preparing the nation for the possibility of her ascension.

The only other woman with significant visibility and influence in the regime is Kim Yo Jong, Kim Jong Un’s younger sister, who has become a powerful figure in her own right, especially in matters of propaganda and foreign policy.

A Nation Divided, a Dynasty Endures

While the Kim family’s hold on North Korea appears unshakable, the country remains divided from South Korea by a heavily militarized border. Many families have been separated for generations, with little hope for reunification in the near future. As the Kim dynasty prepares its next generation for leadership, the longing for family reunions and peace persists on both sides of the border.

The Road Ahead

Kim Ju Ae’s future remains shrouded in mystery, much like the country she may one day lead. Her carefully managed public appearances, the reverence shown by state media, and her father’s apparent efforts to secure her place in the succession line all point to a regime intent on preserving its legacy while adapting to new realities. Whether North Korea is truly ready for its first female leader is uncertain, but the groundwork is clearly being laid for a new chapter in the Kim dynasty.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Pros and Cons of the Big Beautiful Bill

Published

on

The “Big Beautiful Bill” (officially the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) is a sweeping tax and spending package passed in July 2025. It makes permanent many Trump-era tax cuts, introduces new tax breaks for working Americans, and enacts deep cuts to federal safety-net programs. The bill also increases spending on border security and defense, while rolling back clean energy incentives and tightening requirements for social programs.

Pros

1. Tax Relief for Middle and Working-Class Families

2. Support for Small Businesses and Economic Growth

  • Makes the small business deduction permanent, supporting Main Street businesses.
  • Expands expensing for investment in short-lived assets and domestic R&D, which is considered pro-growth.

3. Increased Spending on Security and Infrastructure

4. Simplification and Fairness in the Tax Code

  • Expands the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and raises marginal rates on individuals earning over $400,000.
  • Closes various deductions and loopholes, especially those benefiting private equity and multinational corporations.

Cons

1. Deep Cuts to Social Safety Net Programs

  • Cuts Medicaid by approximately $930 billion and imposes new work requirements, which could leave millions without health insurance.
  • Tightens eligibility and work requirements for SNAP (food assistance), potentially removing benefits from many low-income families.
  • Rolls back student loan forgiveness and repeals Biden-era subsidies.

2. Increases the Federal Deficit

  • The bill is projected to add $3.3–4 trillion to the federal deficit over 10 years.
  • Critics argue that the combination of tax cuts and increased spending is fiscally irresponsible.

3. Benefits Skewed Toward the Wealthy

  • The largest income gains go to affluent Americans, with top earners seeing significant after-tax increases.
  • Critics describe the bill as the largest upward transfer of wealth in recent U.S. history.

4. Rollback of Clean Energy and Climate Incentives

5. Potential Harm to Healthcare and Rural Hospitals

6. Public and Political Backlash

  • The bill is unpopular in public polls and is seen as a political risk for its supporters.
  • Critics warn it will widen the gap between rich and poor and reverse progress on alternative energy and healthcare.

Summary Table

ProsCons
Permanent middle-class tax cutsDeep Medicaid and SNAP cuts
No tax on tips/overtime for most workersMillions may lose health insurance
Doubled Child Tax CreditAdds $3.3–4T to deficit
Small business supportBenefits skewed to wealthy
Increased border/defense spendingClean energy incentives eliminated
Simplifies some tax provisionsThreatens rural hospitals
Public backlash, political risk

In summary:
The Big Beautiful Bill delivers significant tax relief and new benefits for many working and middle-class Americans, but it does so at the cost of deep cuts to social programs, a higher federal deficit, and reduced support for clean energy and healthcare. The bill is highly polarizing, with supporters touting its pro-growth and pro-family provisions, while critics warn of increased inequality and harm to vulnerable populations.

Continue Reading

Business

Trump Threatens to ‘Take a Look’ at Deporting Elon Musk Amid Explosive Feud

Published

on

The escalating conflict between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk reached a new peak this week, as Trump publicly suggested he would consider deporting the billionaire entrepreneur in response to Musk’s fierce criticism of the president’s signature tax and spending bill.

FILE PHOTO: Tesla CEO Elon Musk arrives on the red carpet for the automobile awards “Das Goldene Lenkrad” (The golden steering wheel) given by a German newspaper in Berlin, Germany, November 12, 2019. REUTERS/Hannibal Hanschke/File Photo

“I don’t know, we’ll have to take a look,” Trump told reporters on Tuesday when asked directly if he would deport Musk, who was born in South Africa but has been a U.S. citizen since 2002.

This threat followed a late-night post on Trump’s Truth Social platform, where he accused Musk of being the largest recipient of government subsidies in U.S. history. Trump claimed that without these supports, Musk “would likely have to shut down operations and return to South Africa,” and that ending such subsidies would mean “no more rocket launches, satellites, or electric vehicle production, and our nation would save a FORTUNE”.

Trump also invoked the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—a federal agency Musk previously led—as a potential tool to scrutinize Musk’s companies. “We might have to put DOGE on Elon. You know what DOGE is? The DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon,” Trump remarked, further intensifying the feud.

Background to the Feud

The rupture comes after Musk’s repeated attacks on Trump’s so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill,” a comprehensive spending and tax reform proposal that Musk has labeled a “disgusting abomination” and a threat to the nation’s fiscal health. Musk, once a Trump ally who contributed heavily to his election campaign and served as a government advisor, has called for the formation of a new political party, claiming the bill exposes the need for an alternative to the current two-party system.

Advertisement

In response, Trump’s allies have amplified questions about Musk’s citizenship and immigration history, with some suggesting an investigation into his naturalization process. However, legal experts note that deporting a naturalized U.S. citizen like Musk would be extremely difficult. The only path would involve denaturalization—a rare and complex legal process requiring proof of intentional fraud during the citizenship application, a standard typically reserved for the most egregious cases.

Political Fallout

Musk’s criticism has rattled some Republican lawmakers, who fear the feud could undermine their party’s unity ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Meanwhile, Musk has doubled down on his opposition, warning he will support primary challengers against Republicans who back Trump’s bill.

Key Points:

As the dispute continues, it has become a flashpoint in the broader debate over government spending, corporate subsidies, and political loyalty at the highest levels of American power.

Continue Reading

Trending