The difficulty the House is facing in sending $14 billion in emergency aid to Israel is revealing political divisions that are causing America to appear as a divided superpower, incapable of quickly assisting a friend in what they believe is an existential war.
House GOP leaders have announced their plans to hold a vote on the aid package on Thursday, but the uncertainty within the party’s chaotic majority makes the timetable uncertain. These political divisions and the fractured consensus on foreign policy are increasingly impeding governance and hindering US objectives abroad.
However, both House GOP Whip Tom Emmer and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise have expressed confidence in passing the aid package later in the day.
It should not be this challenging.
In previous years, a vote on aid to Israel would have been one of the least controversial measures in the House. Yet, the delays in moving the package, the delicate power balance in Washington, and conflicts between and within both parties regarding the new Middle East war indicate that there are no longer any easy votes.
The controversy surrounding the issue revolves heavily around newly elected House Speaker Mike Johnson’s decision to fund the $14.3 billion aid package to Israel by making equal budget cuts to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). While this decision is favored by conservatives, many Democrats will vote against it, viewing it as a political stunt.
Nevertheless, Johnson defended his decision to link Israel aid to cuts in IRS funding, emphasizing the principle of fiscal responsibility. He stated that it was the most accessible and largest pool of money available to fulfill this immediate obligation.
The Israel aid package is further entangled in political complications because President Joe Biden included it in a broader request that encompasses the next installment of arms and ammunition for Ukraine. Johnson’s conference opposes certain aspects of this funding request, which exceeds $100 billion. While the speaker intends to move forward with an Israel bill independently, the Senate may add Ukraine aid, prolonging the delivery of US assistance to Israel during their conflict with Hamas.
Johnson faces the same difficult choices as McCarthy.
This debate sheds light on various subplots in national politics, just one year away from the next election. It paints a picture of American dysfunction that adversaries like China and Russia exploit to undermine US power.
- Johnson’s strategy demonstrates how an extreme right-wing GOP conference is willing to engage in hardline politics even on matters with significant global consequences. His inclusion of IRS offsets reveals that, like his predecessor Kevin McCarthy, the Louisiana Republican cannot sustain a functional GOP majority without making concessions to its most hardline members. However, these moves are unlikely to be accepted by the Democratic-led White House or Senate, rendering them ultimately futile. Biden has already vowed to veto the current House bill if it ever reaches him, a highly unlikely event. Johnson’s decision raises the possibility that he is being led by extreme elements within his party rather than vice versa.
- The speaker could strengthen his position if he successfully navigates the bill into law without further delays. However, he risks compromising his authority before building an effective political foundation. While his IRS tactic may secure enough GOP votes for the passage of the bill, it does not change the reality of shared power in Washington. Sooner or later, he will have to produce a measure that can garner support from a Democratic-controlled White House and Senate. This may require relying on some Democratic votes for final passage, a scenario that outraged extreme right GOP members and triggered the downfall of McCarthy, resulting in three weeks of comical power vacuums in the House. If the vote on aid to Israel is further delayed, Johnson will waste even more time just two weeks before a potential government shutdown that can only be prevented by a funding bill, which will be even more challenging to pass than the aid package for Israel.
- The aid debate also exposes the profound divide within the Republican Party on foreign policy between isolationist “Make America Great Again” supporters and the old-school establishment that advocates robust global leadership through alliances, which have contributed to global peace since World War II. Johnson’s maneuvering, by burdening the Israel bill with political priorities and separating it from Ukraine funding, has created a rift with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a staunch conservative who is closer to Biden than his own party in the House on this issue. McConnell emphasized the dangers of disengaging from the world and denied the clear link between America’s adversaries and the threats it faces. Johnson’s actions highlight the conflict within his party regarding these fundamental questions.
- As McConnell noted, the related showdown over aid to Ukraine also exposes the divisions within the GOP and raises the broader question of whether the United States and its citizens are prepared to continue being a stronghold for global democracy. This question lies at the core of a potential clash between Biden, an internationalist shaped by the Cold War, and former President Donald Trump, a transactional leader who views alliances more like protection rackets than enhancers of American global power. The fundamental issue at stake in Ukraine is whether the US will stand up for the independence of a country whose very existence is under threat from a ruthless invasion planned in the Kremlin. Many Republicans in the House, and an increasing number in the Senate, do not consider Ukraine to be a vital US foreign policy interest, leaving some seemingly favoring Russian President Vladimir Putin over democracy in Kyiv.
Supporters of Ukraine in Congress found some hope when Johnson attended the weekly Senate policy lunch. Although the Louisiana lawmaker has expressed skepticism about providing aid to Ukraine in the past, he seemed to signal that he recognized broader duties as the speaker beyond his own political preferences. Johnson stated in a recent interview that the US should not abandon Ukraine to Putin. Senators Markwayne Mullin and Lindsey Graham, both advocates for assisting the war-torn country, expressed positive impressions of the speaker’s foreign policy knowledge. However, the past few weeks have shown that there is a significant difference between what a GOP speaker aims to do and what he can actually accomplish. It is unlikely that there will ever be enough support to pass Ukraine funding solely with the Republican majority, meaning that Johnson will once again need Democratic assistance, which could potentially cripple his speakership.
- While the Republican divisions on foreign policy dominate the headlines, the political aftershocks of Israel’s war with Hamas are becoming a growing concern for Biden on the domestic front. Several prominent progressives are expressing increasing criticism of Israel’s tactics in Gaza, where hundreds of civilians have been killed in what Israel claims are targeted strikes against Islamist militant group leaders. The debate over the aid package for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government will bring Democratic tensions to the forefront in the House.
During a trip to Minnesota, the president came face-to-face with this anger when a protester identified as Rabbi Jessica Rosenberg began chanting “ceasefire now.” Biden acknowledged his support for a humanitarian pause in Israeli operations to facilitate the release of hostages in Gaza and indicated that he understood the emotions involved. However, he has refrained from publicly calling on Israel to agree to a ceasefire with Hamas, arguing that it has the right to defend itself following the terrorist attacks on October 7, which resulted in the deaths of 1,400 people in Israel, the majority of whom were civilians.
With the election just one year away, the president finds himself in a precarious political position and cannot afford low turnout among progressive and Muslim voters who lean towards supporting the Palestinians, especially in swing states like Michigan. In a sign that the White House recognizes the potential political risks, Biden announced plans for a new strategy to combat Islamophobia in the United States. This initiative could make him vulnerable to attacks from Republicans at a time when the country is grappling with growing anti-Semitism. Nevertheless, the conflict in the Middle East presents the president with a new set of complex political challenges to navigate domestically.
