In general, I think the job of pundits is to explain events, not predict them. Things that happen in the real world hinge on so many factors and considerations that even someone who studies politics for a living rarely performs much better than random chance at predicting how they will turn out. Pundits ought to place events into context and explain possibilities, not pretend that they have a crystal ball.
On the other hand, I can safely say that if Ukraine ends up getting an aid package out of this U.S. Congress, I will be surprised.
That doesn’t mean it’s impossible. But it is becoming increasingly unlikely with each passing day.
The basic problem remains that although a majority of the House would likely vote to give a further tranche of aid to Ukraine, an important segment of the Congressional Republican Party is implacably opposed to it. Speaker Mike Johnson could bring the package up for a vote and it would sail through the House, but he’d likely be booted out of his job by those implacable Republicans shortly afterwards.
Johnson has tried to find various ways around this problem. He’s pursued a bipartisan deal to exchange Ukraine aid for Republican priorities, such as an immigration crackdown. He’s tried to tie Ukraine funding to a reversal of a Biden administration decision to temporarily pause the construction of new liquified natural gas export terminals. He’s proposed turning the aid into a loan rather than a grant, an idea which was floated by Donald Trump, whose opposition to the package is an important consideration in House Republicans opposing it.
None of these ideas have worked. And they’ve all smacked of desperation because they involve tying Ukraine aid to some other unsolvable political problem (immigration, energy, Trump’s ego) and then trying to solve them both at once. It’s a bit like saying “we can’t seem to find a cure for cancer, so how about we try cracking nuclear fusion at the same time?”
None of these gambits have addressed the central problem that Johnson faces: a group of far right lawmakers and their leader, Trump, do not want to give more aid to Ukraine. They’re not looking to get into horse trading over immigration and LNG exports. To them, the aid isn’t some concession to be granted to the Democrats in exchange for something else. They feel deeply about not sending it.
This can end one of two ways for Johnson. They both start the same way: he brings up a Ukrainian aid package for a vote. He then either hopes that the far right were just bluffing and they don’t kick him out via a so-called “motion to vacate” (Marjorie Taylor Greene already has one locked and loaded, but it’s possible nobody else would support it). Or, he discovers that the far right weren’t bluffing, and he loses his job as Speaker.
Another much-discussed option is that enough Democrats might defend Johnson that he ends up getting to keep his job. This all gets a bit parliamentary, but for this to happen they would have to vote to “table” the motion to vacate - effectively sweeping it away before it comes up for a vote. This wouldn’t require any Democrats to actually affirmatively vote for Johnson to be Speaker, because technically they’d just be voting to dismiss an attempt to unseat him.
It’s plausible that they might do that. There isn’t as much bad blood between Democrats and Johnson as there was between Democrats and Kevin McCarthy, and all the major bills that Johnson has got passed under his speakership have gone through with Democratic votes anyway. When Johnson is having to bypass his own caucus and reach across the aisle to get government funding passed, there’s an argument to be made that the House is already being run by a Republican-Democratic coalition. It’s not such a bad situation for Democrats to be in, given that they have a minority of seats.
But even if some Democrats do vote to protect Johnson, it likely won’t change the way this story ends. Firstly, Democrats have little reason to protect Johnson after a Ukraine aid bill has passed. They’ll already have gotten what they wanted. Secondly, even if Democrats were to help him, it’s not like the Freedom Caucus is going to just give up - they can keep bringing motions to vacate and force Democrats to defend Johnson repeatedly. That means that the only really plausible reason for Democrats to protect him - that a continuation of the status quo is better than a return to the legislative chaos of last year - doesn’t really apply. There will be chaos even if Johnson gets to stick around - so why should they accept responsibility for it rather than leaving Republicans to sort out their own problems?
So will Johnson move the bill or won’t he? I think it’s increasingly unlikely. But there is perhaps one scenario in which he might - and that’s as a deliberate sacrificial move. Johnson is, reportedly, tiring of the demands of being speaker. Passing Ukraine aid would make him a hero to a lot of people, at least for a time - not bad for a guy who a year ago was an unknown backbencher recording podcasts about creationism. On the other hand, he’s never really indicated that he cares that much about national security issues at all - and going down in flames this way would put him out of step with his increasingly isolationist, Russia-friendly party in a way that would probably harm his future career.
That’s why I think, sadly, that Ukraine is not likely to get its aid. Call it a feeling, not a prediction - and one that I’ll be hoping is wrong.
That’s all very sensible. It all feels a bit 2017-19 Brexit-like- similar situation where you take a normally majoritarian system and put it on a knife edge. I could also see why defections (a decent escape valve for many other legislatures) could empower the far left and so not be a good option for moderate republicans either. I wonder if ousting Johnson in favour of a unity candidate backed by some democrats could be an option? Or maybe there’s just too little trust to pull it off and high incentives for the dems to watch the republicans fail (not to mention trump patronage, cultural polarisation, etc).
Interesting article thanks! Why don’t moderate republicans threaten to remove him if he doesn’t propose Ukraine funding? There seems to be a similar issue here in the UK where the right of the Conservative Party exercise their veto power much more effectively than the centre; I’m keen to understand it. I feel like there must be more to it than relative levels of shamelessness/commitment to the party…