In America: Biden's Billion-Dollar Ukraine Aid
On December 3rd, President Joe Biden signed a memorandum authorizing Secretary of State Antony Blinken to defy current regulations and provide an additional $63 million in aid to Ukraine. Days later, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced an additional $1 billion in aid to Ukraine during a news conference in Simi Valley, California. The move seeks to enhance Ukraine's defense against continuous Russian aggression and raises serious concerns about the balance between pressing human demands and the integrity of democratic checks and balances.
The Far-Reaching Directive & Its Implications
The memorandum utilizes section 614(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA), which allows the President to bypass Congress' approval if necessary for U.S. security interests. The memorandum articulates: "By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 621 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA), I hereby delegate to the Secretary of State the authority under section 614(a)(1) of the FAA to determine whether it is important to the security interests of the United States to provide up to $63 million in assistance to Ukraine, without regard to any provision of law related to section 614(a)(1) of the FAA."
"This administration has made its choice. So has a bipartisan coalition in Congress. The next administration must make its own choice," Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin stated during an address at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. This decision indicates the administration's commitment to Ukraine while also underscoring the dangers of circumventing established parliamentary processes. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 aims to ensure that foreign aid is strictly monitored and accountable, typically to the House of Representatives and the Senate. By evading these safeguards, the administration may set a precedent for future acts that diminish legislative oversight of foreign aid programs.
The Legacy of the Cold War & The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA), enacted during the Cold War, was a key piece of legislation meant to streamline US international aid operations. The FAA aimed to "improve the United States' foreign policy, security, and overall well-being" by aiding nations in their efforts to achieve economic and social growth, as well as internal and external security. The Act created the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to supervise non-military economic assistance programs, delineating military aid from non-military support.
President John F. Kennedy, who signed the Act into law, emphasized the importance of a coordinated and effective foreign aid strategy to oppose Communist influence and promote newly independent countries. In early 2023, the Congressional Research Service reported that "the FAA sought to provide long-term economic support, foster self-sustaining growth, and integrate developing countries into the global economy," which was a stark departure from President Biden's intent for the Billion-Dollar grant—part of the fight back against Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
The Risks of America’s Involvement in Other Wars
This decision to forego congressional scrutiny raises questions about the potential dangers of precedents it sets - despite the urgency of Ukraine's need for these funds. The potential for aid to be abused or fall short of its intended objectives is one major concern. The Stimson Centre agreed in 2022 that such quick resource distribution without careful evaluations can result in corruption and inefficiency, harming the aid's efficacy.
This decision sets a precedent that could impact future wars, particularly the ongoing conflict involving Israel in the Middle East. If subsequent governments adopt similar approaches, it may become common to avoid congressional oversight, which would undermine the necessary checks and balances in democratic governance. Concerns regarding unchecked funding for Israel's military operations in Gaza have been voiced by figures such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders. This situation could lead to rushed decisions that do not fully consider the long-term effects on regional stability and American foreign policy.
Ukraine's President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has thanked the United States for its continuing assistance. The increased aid is a critical lifeline in their continued fight against Russian aggression. Ukrainian leaders have emphasized the necessity of this support in strengthening their defenses and preserving their sovereignty. The aid package includes weapons for rocket systems and unmanned aerial systems, as well as help for maintenance and repair programs, which are "vital for sustaining Ukraine's military efforts," according to the United States Department of Defense.
Will Trump Make Ukraine Great Again? Or give it to putin?
As President Biden's term comes to an end, the future of U.S. support for Ukraine remains uncertain. President-elect Donald Trump has expressed hesitations about sustaining aid to Ukraine, raising concerns about the consistency of U.S. foreign policy. His "America First" agenda suggests a potential shift in priorities, which could impact the level of assistance provided to Ukraine and other conflict zones. Trump has criticized the scale of U.S. support for Ukraine, remarking, "Every time Zelenskyy comes to the United States, he walks away with $100 billion," which conveys his apprehension regarding future aid.
Prominent figures associated with the second term of President-Elect Trump, such as Vivek Ramaswamy, have defined the “America First” movement - not as a directly nationalist movement - like the Bush-era republicanism, but as a non-interventionist policy. What does this mean? Simply put - this includes not using American money or aid for any cause that doesn’t further America.
Prominent figures on the left side of American politics, such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Representative Adam Schiff, have criticized the former and potential fs position on Ukraine. They argue that his stance is influenced more by personal ties to Russian President Putin than by a commitment to American interests, contrary to what Ramaswamy would like to claim.
A decline in U.S. backing could embolden Russia's efforts to further destabilize the region. Conversely, ongoing support would demonstrate a strong commitment to upholding democratic values and international norms. The new administration's policies will be closely scrutinized by both allies and adversaries, as they will shape the future of U.S. foreign policy and its role on the global stage.