One of the things I discuss with Brendan and MikeinOhio on the 9th episode of the Progress Pondcast is the prospects for a foreign/military aid bill for Israel, Taiwan and Ukraine to pass through Congress. The effort is working its way through the U.S. Senate led by Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma and Democrat Chris Murphy of Connecticut. The trick is that the foreign/military aid is tied to a tough border bill. This was supposed to be the price the Republicans extracted from the Biden administration for agreeing to stand up to Vladimir Putin. But that was always a highly dubious offer. I know I never took it seriously.
It’s been obvious forever that Trump is in the pocket of Putin and will do anything he can to help Russia subjugate Ukraine. He’s also very transparently planning on running on immigration, so a bipartisan deal that addresses the flood of southern border crossings is bad for Trump. It takes away his biggest issue and makes Biden look competent and moderate. So, why would the Republicans ever agree to this kind of deal?
It’s a bit complicated because Speaker of the House Mike Johnson told his Senate colleagues that he needed a border deal or he couldn’t get Ukraine aid through the House, and perhaps Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell believed he’d keep his word on that deal. I can’t really say, except I do know that McConnell is sincere about helping Ukraine.
As we discuss on the pondcast, McConnell looks like he want to press forward and at least pass the border/aid bill in the Senate. But he’s taking a ton of flak for it because Trump has been very clear that he opposes the effort. And his wishes are being heeded. Consider that the Oklahoma GOP censured Sen. Lankford over the weekend merely for attempting to negotiate a border bill.
The Oklahoma Republican Party approved a resolution censuring Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., and attacking the Republican lawmaker for negotiating with Democrats on a potential border deal.
The resolution, shared by Oklahoma State Sen. Dusty Deevers on X, formerly Twitter, accuses Lankford of “playing fast and loose with Democrats on our border policy.”
…The resolution, approved Saturday, also calls on Lankford to “cease and desist jeopardizing the security and liberty” of Americans.
The immigration deal – which has not yet been finalized – would reportedly make it harder for migrants to claim asylum, make it easier for U.S. officials to deport migrants who have remained in the country illegally, expand detention capacity and add Border Patrol staff.
Incredibly, the censure was approved prior to the proposed text of the bill even being released. The sin here is that Lankford was willing to even enter into negotiations on a border bill, which the Republicans argue is among the most urgent issues facing the country. The purpose of the censure is clearly to send a shot across the bow of any Senate Republicans who are considering defying Trump’s demand that no deal be made.
The thing is, McConnell and other conservative supporters of the border bill rightfully recognize that they’re in position to win concessions from the Biden administration and the congressional Democrats that would never ordinarily be on offer. For example, if the deal dies and Trump is elected, the Democrats in the Senate would surely filibuster an immigration bill that is as tough as the one currently under consideration. So, it’s simply not the case that a Trump presidency would result in a stronger border bill.
The argument against passing the bill in the Senate, in addition to it being opposed by Trump, is that it divides the Republicans and might not even be taken up by the House. Why make senators take a tough vote on a bill that isn’t going anywhere? And if the House were to take it up, it would also be a tough vote for their Republican members, which is something to be avoided.
The last factor here is the possibility of a Plan B for the foreign/military aid. If the effort to tie it to a border bill fails, is there some kind of backup plan or Ukraine screwed? And what about Israel and Taiwan?
So, here is where things stand:
Lankford called out his colleagues for bowing to political pressure, noting that four months ago Republicans refused to grant funding for Ukraine, Israel and the southern border until there were policy changes.
“So we actually locked arms together and said we’re not going to give you money for this. We want a change in law,” Lankford said. “When we’re finally going to the end, they’re like, ‘Oh, just kidding. I actually don’t want a change in law because it’s a presidential election year.’ We all have an oath to the Constitution and we have a commitment to say we’re going to do whatever we can to be able to secure the border.”
I am concerned about how this works out on the substance, because Ukraine in particular needs aid, but the politics aren’t so bad for the Democrats.
“Republicans have put themselves in a position to lose the politics of this situation, no matter what happens next,” said one Democratic strategist working on Senate races, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly discuss the politics of the issue.
If Trump is clearly responsible for the death of a tough bipartisan border bill, that’s going to be a strong argument Democrats can make to defuse the power of the border in the upcoming elections, and if deal instead goes through despite Trump’s interference it will also be a strong point in Biden’s favor, at least among people who aren’t angry about the provisions of the bill.
But let’s not be unrealistic. Speaker Johnson wrote in a letter to House Republicans on Friday that “public opinion polls show the country has overwhelmingly sided with us on th[e border] issue.” Several recent polls back Johnson up on that point.
Sadly, I think the Republicans will benefit if there is no deal. And, unless there’s another way to get aid to Ukraine, Putin will benefit too.
