Despite the ongoing U.S. political turmoil and pre-election focus, efforts to unlock aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan persist, along with addressing the challenge of illegal migration. In American domestic politics, these issues are interconnected, with the Trumpist faction within the Republicans strategically keeping the illegal migration issue in the spotlight for electoral gains. This allows Donald Trump to use it to warm up his own electorate. Recent shifts in the Senate indicate changes, prompting a closer look at unfolding events in Congress. For further details, refer to the Apostrophe article.
Reason to senatorial voting
On February 13, the U.S. Senate backed the bill with 70 senators in favor and 29 against.
‘Bipartisan backing for Ukraine remains intact, with Republican senators exhibiting a more systematic and responsible approach. Some who might have hesitated to vote or support likely did so, banking on the expectation that the House of Representatives would block the bill. This combination of factors proved effective,’ the political scientist Dmytro Levus tells Apostrophe.
The less optimistic prospect is in the House of Representatives. It is a concerning factor that speaker Mike Johnson has explicitly stated his intention not to bring the bill to a vote in the House.
‘Now, in the absence of having received any single border policy change from the Senate, the House will have to continue to work its own will on these important matters. America deserves better than the Senate's status quo,’ Johnson said on X.
According to Politico, Speaker Johnson may dismiss the foreign aid package, choosing instead to prioritize a renewed effort to pass a distinct aid plan for Israel. Last week, his bipartisan attempt to push through the Israel aid plan faced failure.
However, it's unlikely that such a response will dampen the establishment and centrist Republicans' inclination to vote for the legislation, as highlighted by the authors, Daniela Diaz and Nicholas Wu.
The stance of the centrist Republicans holds significance in this context. The more vocal they become in advocating for new aid to Ukraine post the Senate's approval of an additional funding package, the greater the likelihood that Johnson will endorse the bill in some capacity.
Bypassing Johnson
In the American context, the Speaker of the House wields more influence compared to the heads of parliaments in other countries. The key difference: he may or may not put to a vote bills at his own discretion. This is particularly vital now, as the Republican representative strategically leverages this platform to impede initiatives from the Democratic White House.
There are ways to get around Mike Johnson, such as the Discharge petition. This mechanism enables the introduction of a bill for consideration without a committee report. The catch: it requires 218 votes.
As highlighted by The Hill, House Democrats possess a workpiece of Discharge petition from the previous year's impasse over the national debt limit. Currently, it boasts 213 signatures, with just five more needed to complete the collection.
Yet, deploying the petition for the Senate's foreign aid package may lead to the withdrawal of signatures by ‘progressive’ Democrats, a faction advocating increased support for Palestinians and critical of Israel. Their protest against including military aid to Israel would necessitate additional Republican signatures.
Once more, persuading a faction of Republicans to endorse the Discharge petition will not be straightforward, as aligning with the Democrats in this move constitutes a significant challenge to the party's leadership. Nonetheless, certain Republican senators have initiated efforts to lobby their counterparts in the House of Representatives.
An alternative approach, as highlighted by The Hill's Mike Lillis and Michael Schnell, is for GOP leaders to incorporate a foreign aid provision into obligatory spending bills slated for Congressional consideration in early March.
However, this scenario appears less probable, considering Johnson's renewed emphasis on the border matter. In this set of bills, the focal point is expected to remain on the migration issue.
Isolate the radicals, unite the moderates
Johnson has an alternative - to concede to Democrats and centrist Republicans and proceed with a vote. However, this necessitates reaching agreements with the Democrats, bearing in mind the looming threat of resignation from Trumpist Republicans.
In a comparable fashion, Johnson's forerunner McCarthy relinquished his position in October last year, seemingly for aligning with the Democrats. The Democrats voted for his resignation to highlight the shortcomings of their rivals.
The current dynamics differ. Johnson holds some favor among centrist Republicans and is relatively acceptable to Democrats. If a ‘non-aggression’ pact can be reached with the latter, it may temporarily break the deadlock. Ongoing discussions on this matter are reported in the American media. Notably, Congressman Adam Smith from the Democratic Party has openly expressed support for Johnson.
‘If we get a vote on the appropriations bills and we get a vote on the supplemental, there’ll be enough Democrats that Johnson will not be removed as Speaker. That’s just my view,’ Smith said.
Yet, another factor to consider is Johnson's attention on the upcoming presidential elections. With the significant likelihood of Trump, who is presently obstructing aid to Ukraine, the Speaker of the House may strategically align himself to benefit his own future political prospects.
