U.S. house of representatives to debate whether to continue sending weapons to Ukraine

The House of Representatives of the United States is about to debate whether to continue donating weapons to Ukraine. The decision comes after the Senate passed a bill that funds weapons transfers to several countries, with two-thirds of the $95 billion going to Ukraine. However, the bill faces opposition from the Trump-led nationalist wing of the Republican Party, with Trump allies tearing into Republicans backing the legislation and threatening them with primary challenges. The Republican leader of the House, Speaker Mike Johnson, has also signaled that he won't assist in getting the bill passed.

The impending debate in the House of Representatives will likely reveal whether there is still a significant amount of the pre-Trump Republican Party left to push the legislation through. One path forward could be a negotiated deal between the parties, potentially including new U.S. border-security measures. The other path involves a procedural longshot, such as a discharge position, a parliamentary gambit that has succeeded in forcing a vote only twice in the past three decades. This would allow members of both parties to gather signatures when a bill has been stuck at committee for 30 days, but it would require a majority of 218 members to force a vote.

Several lawmakers and experts have highlighted the importance of funding Ukraine as a matter of national security and deterring Russia. Failure to do so could result in a multi-layered catastrophe if Ukraine is overrun, including human atrocities, more refugees, damaged grain exports, higher food prices, and emboldened autocrats. Moreover, it is also uncertain how long the funding would last Ukraine, with one military analyst suggesting it would likely only last until the end of this year.

Some Republicans have also attempted to depict the bill as an attempt to keep arming Ukraine well into a Trump presidency, should he win the election. In contrast, others argue that the U.S. is being asked to fork over $60 billion more without clarity on the objective of the funding.