Connect with us

Politics

In Ukraine, relief and rejoicing over U.S. aid vote

Published

on

In Ukraine, relief and rejoicing over U.S. aid vote

Ukrainians heaved a collective sigh of relief Sunday after the U.S. House of Representatives approved a long-sought $61 billion in aid, breaking a legislative logjam that had deepened hardships on the war’s front lines, and made it difficult for Ukrainian forces to fend off Russian attacks on civilian neighborhoods and critical infrastructure.

However, with a fresh infusion of aid ready to be rushed in as soon as the Senate approves the measure and President Biden signs the measure into law — both expected to happen by midweek — it may now take some time to determine whether Russian forces’ battlefield momentum of recent months can be reversed, analysts said.

And Ukrainians were braced for at least a short-term redoubling of the near-nightly pummeling of cities and towns across the country with missiles and drones — which in recent weeks was exacerbated by an alarming depletion of Ukrainian air defenses. An angry Russia could try to get in more punishing attacks before more air-defense help arrives, some feared.

“First of all — thank you, thank you,” said Anastasia Chuchin, 36, who was hurrying to catch a train on a rain-soaked morning in the capital, Kyiv. “We’re very grateful for this assistance. But we may still have some really hard days ahead of us.”

Advertisement

President Volodymyr Zelensky issued a statement of appreciation moments after the vote, which occurred late Saturday evening Ukraine time. He thanked by name House Speaker Mike Johnson, the Louisiana Republican who had been heavily lobbied by Ukraine’s supporters to bring the measure to a vote despite bitter opposition from his party’s far-right flank.

“This is a life-saving decision,” Zelensky said in a Saturday night address to the country in which he expressed gratitude to all those in the United States who, “like us in Ukraine, feel that Russian evil definitely should not prevail.”

Just as important in that initial reaction was what Zelensky did not say. The Ukrainian leader carefully refrained from alluding to Ukrainians’ frustrations over how long it had taken to move the aid measure forward — or to widespread fears here that American assistance might be on the verge of drying up altogether, particularly if former President Trump, the Republican nominee, wins back the White House in November.

In an interview aired Sunday, though, the Ukrainian leader took a starker tone about setbacks directly tied to the fact that “the process stalled for half a year.”

“We had losses …. in men, in equipment,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” particularly citing the deteriorating situation in Ukraine’s Donbas region, its industrial heartland.

Advertisement

“The east was very difficult, and we did lose the initiative,” he acknowledged. “Now we have the chance to stabilize this situation.”

As the political infighting dragged on in Washington, Ukrainian officials expressed particular alarm over the systematic destruction of crucial energy infrastructure, such as a power plant wrecked by missiles outside Kyiv this month. In some parts of the country, the targeting of electricity-generating plants has caused power cuts of a scope and duration comparable to those seen much earlier in the war.

U.S. defense officials have not provided a detailed breakdown of what will be in the first tranche of assistance, but the first order of business will likely be to replenish stores of munitions used by Ukrainian forces along a front line that stretches for hundreds of miles, arcing through the country’s south and east. Field units have reported rationing artillery shells and precision rockets even as Russian troops mount an aggressive push in places like the key eastern town of Chasiv Yar.

Speaking on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday, Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he was confident the U.S. would be able to resume shipments of equipment by the end of the week.

“This should have happened six months ago,” Warner said of the House vote to approve the aid. “The next best time is now, this week. … If [Ukrainians] don’t have the materiels, they can’t carry this fight to the Russians.”

Advertisement

U.S. and Ukrainian officials said resupply efforts could take place relatively quickly, because of supply chains and logistical networks established early in the more than two-year-old conflict. Some of those could be reactivated within days.

Even so, the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based think tank, noted that “Ukrainian forces may suffer additional setbacks in the coming weeks” while waiting for the arrival of weaponry that will allow them to stabilize the front lines.

While Russia has not managed any major battlefield breakthroughs since capturing the eastern town of Avdiivka in February, independent military analysts had reported steady incremental advances, amounting to hundreds of square miles of territory, that could have left Ukrainians hard-pressed to contain a concerted Russian push.

With the imminent arrival of aid, though, Ukrainian forces “will likely be able to blunt the current Russian offensive assuming the resumed U.S. assistance arrives promptly,” the institute said.

Russia, predictably, hammered on what has become a key talking point — that U.S. assistance would do little more than prolong a bloody confrontation. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also suggested that the main idea behind the package was to funnel money to U.S. weapons manufacturers.

Advertisement

The House vote “will make the United States of America richer, further ruin Ukraine and result in the deaths of even more Ukrainians, the fault of the Kyiv regime,” Peskov said, according to official Russian media.

Some U.S. lawmakers said coming to Ukraine’s aid now had helped avert sending a dangerous signal of U.S. weakness to Moscow.

“If we surrender Ukraine like we did Afghanistan, which was a debacle, will the United States be weaker or stronger?” Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

“We were running out of time,” McCaul said. “Ukraine was about to fall.”

In the NBC interview, Zelensky said the passage of the bill would send a powerful message to Russia that Washington stands by Kyiv, and that the war would not devolve into “a second Afghanistan.”

Advertisement

“I think this support will really strengthen the armed forces of Ukraine, and we will have a chance for victory,” Zelensky said through an interpreter.

European allies, for their part, had watched the drawn-out aid drama with mounting anxiety and exasperation. But most quickly pivoted to public expressions of optimism and unity.

“Ukraine is using the weapons provided by NATO Allies to destroy Russian combat capabilities. This makes us all safer, in Europe & North America,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg posted on the platform X.

A few, including Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, could not suppress a slightly sardonic tone even in expressing relief. NATO allies that feel more directly threatened by Russia, including the Baltic states and Poland, have long viewed the conflict with a sense of crisis and urgency, and were at times incredulous as U.S. support appeared to flag.

“Better late than too late,” Tusk wrote crisply on X, referring to the long-delayed House vote. “And I hope it is not too late for Ukraine.”

Advertisement

Many Ukrainians, whose days and nights are punctuated by air alerts that send people scurrying into basement bunkers or taking makeshift shelter behind a “second wall” at home, were eager to make the point that not only their own safety was at stake.

“This is a recognition that helping us in our fight against Russia and [Russian President Vladimir] Putin helps Europe, helps democracy, helps the entire whole world,” Dmytro Laba, a 36-year-old IT specialist in Kyiv, said of the House vote. “Even the United States of America.”

King reported from Kyiv and Wilkinson from Washington.

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

Published

on

Video: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

new video loaded: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

transcript

transcript

Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

Federal prosecutors opened an investigation into whether Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, lied to Congress about the scope of renovations of the central bank’s buildings. He called the probe “unprecedented” in a rare video message.

“Good evening. This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions, or whether instead, monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation.” “Well, thank you very much. We’re looking at the construction. Thank you.”

Advertisement
Federal prosecutors opened an investigation into whether Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, lied to Congress about the scope of renovations of the central bank’s buildings. He called the probe “unprecedented” in a rare video message.

By Nailah Morgan

January 12, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

San Antonio ends its abortion travel fund after new state law, legal action

Published

on

San Antonio ends its abortion travel fund after new state law, legal action

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

San Antonio has shut down its out-of-state abortion travel fund after a new Texas law that prohibits the use of public funds to cover abortions and a lawsuit from the state challenging the city’s fund.

City Council members last year approved $100,000 for its Reproductive Justice Fund to support abortion-related travel, prompting Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to sue over allegations that the city was “transparently attempting to undermine and subvert Texas law and public policy.”

Paxton claimed victory in the lawsuit on Friday after the case was dismissed without a finding for either side.

WYOMING SUPREME COURT RULES LAWS RESTRICTING ABORTION VIOLATE STATE CONSTITUTION

Advertisement

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton claimed victory in the lawsuit after the case was dismissed without a finding for either side. (Hannah Beier/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“Texas respects the sanctity of unborn life, and I will always do everything in my power to prevent radicals from manipulating the system to murder innocent babies,” Paxton said in a statement. “It is illegal for cities to fund abortion tourism with taxpayer funds. San Antonio’s unlawful attempt to cover the travel and other expenses for out-of-state abortions has now officially been defeated.”

But San Antonio’s city attorney argued that the city did nothing wrong and pushed back on Paxton’s claim that the state won the lawsuit.

“This litigation was both initiated and abandoned by the State of Texas,” the San Antonio city attorney’s office said in a statement to The Texas Tribune. “In other words, the City did not drop any claims; the State of Texas, through the Texas Office of the Attorney General, dropped its claims.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he will continue opposing the use of public funds for abortion-related travel. (Justin Lane/Reuters)

Advertisement

Paxton’s lawsuit argued that the travel fund violates the gift clause of the Texas Constitution. The state’s 15th Court of Appeals sided with Paxton and granted a temporary injunction in June to block the city from disbursing the fund while the case moved forward.

Gov. Greg Abbott in August signed into law Senate Bill 33, which bans the use of public money to fund “logistical support” for abortion. The law also allows Texas residents to file a civil suit if they believe a city violated the law.

“The City believed the law, prior to the passage of SB 33, allowed the uses of the fund for out-of-state abortion travel that were discussed publicly,” the city attorney’s office said in its statement. “After SB 33 became law and no longer allowed those uses, the City did not proceed with the procurement of those specific uses—consistent with its intent all along that it would follow the law.”

TRUMP URGES GOP TO BE ‘FLEXIBLE’ ON HYDE AMENDMENT, IGNITING BACKLASH FROM PRO-LIFE ALLIES

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a law in August that blocks cities from using public money to help cover travel or other costs related to abortion. (Antranik Tavitian/Reuters)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The broader Reproductive Justice Fund remains, but it is restricted to non-abortion services such as home pregnancy tests, emergency contraception and STI testing.

The city of Austin also shut down its abortion travel fund after the law was signed. Austin had allocated $400,000 to its Reproductive Healthcare Logistics Fund in 2024 to help women traveling to other states for an abortion with funding for travel, food and lodging.

Continue Reading

Politics

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta opts against running for governor. Again.

Published

on

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta opts against running for governor. Again.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced Sunday that he would not run for California governor, a decision grounded in his belief that his legal efforts combating the Trump administration as the state’s top prosecutor are paramount at this moment in history.

“Watching this dystopian horror come to life has reaffirmed something I feel in every fiber of my being: in this moment, my place is here — shielding Californians from the most brazen attacks on our rights and our families,” Bonta said in a statement. “My vision for the California Department of Justice is that we remain the nation’s largest and most powerful check on power.”

Bonta said that President Trump’s blocking of welfare funds to California and the fatal shooting of a Minnesota mother of three last week by a federal immigration agent cemented his decision to seek reelection to his current post, according to Politico, which first reported that Bonta would not run for governor.

Bonta, 53, a former state lawmaker and a close political ally to Gov. Gavin Newsom, has served as the state’s top law enforcement official since Newsom appointed him to the position in 2021. In the last year, his office has sued the Trump administration more than 50 times — a track record that would probably have served him well had he decided to run in a state where Trump has lost three times and has sky-high disapproval ratings.

Advertisement

Bonta in 2024 said that he was considering running. Then in February he announced he had ruled it out and was focused instead on doing the job of attorney general, which he considers especially important under the Trump administration. Then, both former Vice President Kamala Harris and Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) announced they would not run for governor, and Bonta began reconsidering, he said.

“I had two horses in the governor’s race already,” Bonta told The Times in November. “They decided not to get involved in the end. … The race is fundamentally different today, right?”

The race for California governor remains wide open. Newsom is serving the final year of his second term and is barred from running again because of term limits. Newsom has said he is considering a run for president in 2028.

Former Rep. Katie Porter — an early leader in polls — late last year faltered after videos emerged of her screaming at an aide and berating a reporter. The videos contributed to her dropping behind Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican, in a November poll released by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times.

Porter rebounded a bit toward the end of the year, a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California showed, however none of the candidates has secured a majority of support and many voters remain undecided.

Advertisement

California hasn’t elected a Republican governor since 2006, Democrats heavily outnumber Republicans in the state, and many are seething with anger over Trump and looking for Democratic candidates willing to fight back against the current administration.

Bonta has faced questions in recent months about spending about $468,000 in campaign funds on legal advice last year as he spoke to federal investigators about alleged corruption involving former Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, who was charged in an alleged bribery scheme involving local businessmen David Trung Duong and Andy Hung Duong. All three have pleaded not guilty.

According to his political consultant Dan Newman, Bonta — who had received campaign donations from the Duong family — was approached by investigators because he was initially viewed as a “possible victim” in the alleged scheme, though that was later ruled out. Bonta has since returned $155,000 in campaign contributions from the Duong family, according to news reports.

Bonta is the son of civil rights activists Warren Bonta, a white native Californian, and Cynthia Bonta, a native of the Philippines who immigrated to the U.S. on a scholarship in 1965. Bonta, a U.S. citizen, was born in Quezon City, Philippines, in 1972, when his parents were working there as missionaries, and immigrated with his family to California as an infant.

In 2012, Bonta was elected to represent Oakland, Alameda and San Leandro as the first Filipino American to serve in California’s Legislature. In Sacramento, he pursued a string of criminal justice reforms and developed a record as one of the body’s most liberal members.

Advertisement

Bonta is married to Assemblywoman Mia Bonta (D-Alameda), who succeeded him in the state Assembly, and the couple have three children.

Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Trending