Connect with us

Politics

How the House Voted on Foreign Aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan

Published

on

How the House Voted on Foreign Aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan

Votes on the Foreign Aid Bills

Source: Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives

The House passed a long-stalled foreign aid package on Saturday that gives funding to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, with a majority of lawmakers backing money for American allies across the globe. The package, which now goes to the Senate, is almost certain to become law.

The Senate passed similar legislation in February. But in the face of distinct bases of opposition to different elements of the legislation, which threatened to tank the package as a whole, Speaker Mike Johnson advanced the foreign aid using a convoluted strategy: It split the package into three parts, each of which received its own vote, added a fourth bill with Republican priorities as a sweetener and melded it all together again once everything passed.

Advertisement

The plan, laid out in a rule that passed on Friday, was concocted to capitalize on the pools of support for each part of the $95 billion package, while preventing opposition to any one piece from taking down all of them.

How Different Factions Voted

Note: Progressive Democrats are members of the House Progressive Caucus. Hard-right Republicans include members who were supported by the House Freedom Fund during the 2022 midterms, opposed Kevin McCarthy’s election as speaker in January 2023, or voted to oust Mr. McCarthy from the speakership last October. The fund is the campaign arm of the House Freedom Caucus, a hard-right faction founded in 2015.

A majority of Republicans voted against Ukraine aid on Saturday, in a reflection of the stiff resistance within the G.O.P. to continuing to aid Ukraine against President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia’s invasion. The coalition that voted against the bill extended from right-wing members of the House Freedom Caucus to leadership, such as Representative Elise Stefanik of New York, the No. 3 House Republican. On Israel aid, on the other hand, most Republicans voted “yes.”

Advertisement

Thirty-four right-wing Republicans also opposed aid to American allies in the Indo-Pacific, while Representative Rashida Tlaib, Democrat of Michigan, declined to take a yes-or-no position and voted “present.” Representative Bob Good, Republican of Virginia and the chair of the House Freedom Caucus, was one of the 21 members of his party who voted against the Israel package. Echoing one of the many grievances shared by hard-right Republicans who opposed all of the aid measures, Mr. Good said his support for “Israel’s right to defend itself remains unshakeable” but that he disagreed with a measure that would add to the nation’s debt.

While all Democrats voted in favor of aid to Ukraine and all but Ms. Tlaib supported funding to Taiwan, 37 left-leaning Democrats defected to vote against the Israel aid bill. They said before the vote that they opposed unfettered aid to Israel that could be used in its offensive in Gaza. The opposition to the Israel aid represented a minority of Democrats, but reflected the deep resistance to unconditional aid and the divisions in the party on Gaza. Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland represented a notable new “no” vote among Democrats, and other standouts included Representatives Donald S. Beyer Jr. of Virginia, Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and John Garamendi of California.

Still, 37 “no” votes, while a break from Washington’s ironclad support for the Jewish state, fell short of the opposition bloc progressives had hoped to muster. Thirty-nine Democrats had voted “no” on Friday on the rule to allow the foreign aid package to come to the House floor, a target that progressives just missed on Saturday on the Israel bill. Fourteen of those Democrats voted on Saturday in favor of aid to Israel, while 12 Democrats who voted to allow the package on the floor on Friday then cast votes against the funding itself.

Twenty-five Republicans voted against the fourth bill, which included measures that could lead to a ban on TikTok in the United States and that would redirect funds from seized Russian assets to help aid Ukraine. Democrats put up a big vote — 174 — in favor of this bill, which was intended to sweeten the overall package for conservatives.

How Every Member Voted

Advertisement

Politics

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

Published

on

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order blocking U.S. courts from seizing Venezuelan oil revenues held in American Treasury accounts.

The order states that court action against the funds would undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

President Donald Trump is pictured signing two executive orders on Sept. 19, 2025, establishing the “Trump Gold Card” and introducing a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. He signed another executive order recently protecting oil revenue. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Trump signed the order on Friday, the same day that he met with nearly two dozen top oil and gas executives at the White House. 

The president said American energy companies will invest $100 billion to rebuild Venezuela’s “rotting” oil infrastructure and push production to record levels following the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.

The U.S. has moved aggressively to take control of Venezuela’s oil future following the collapse of the Maduro regime.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

Published

on

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

One of the most important political stories in American history — one that is particularly germane to our current, tumultuous time — unfolded in Los Angeles some 65 years ago.

Sen. John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, had just received his party’s nomination for president and in turn he shunned the desires of his most liberal supporters by choosing a conservative out of Texas as his running mate. He did so in large part to address concerns that his faith would somehow usurp his oath to uphold the Constitution. The last time the Democrats nominated a Catholic — New York Gov. Al Smith in 1928 — he lost in a landslide, so folks were more than a little jittery about Kennedy’s chances.

“I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk,” Kennedy told the crowd at the Memorial Coliseum. “But I look at it this way: The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment.”

The most important part of the story is what happened before Kennedy gave that acceptance speech.

While his faith made party leaders nervous, they were downright afraid of the impact a civil rights protest during the Democratic National Convention could have on November’s election. This was 1960. The year began with Black college students challenging segregation with lunch counter sit-ins across the Deep South, and by spring the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had formed. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not the organizer of the protest at the convention, but he planned to be there, guaranteeing media attention. To try to prevent this whole scene, the most powerful Black man in Congress was sent to stop him.

Advertisement

The Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was also a warrior for civil rights, but the House representative preferred the legislative approach, where backroom deals were quietly made and his power most concentrated. He and King wanted the same things for Black people. But Powell — who was first elected to Congress in 1944, the same year King enrolled at Morehouse College at the age of 15 — was threatened by the younger man’s growing influence. He was also concerned that his inability to stop the protest at the convention would harm his chance to become chairman of a House committee.

And so Powell — the son of a preacher, and himself a Baptist preacher in Harlem — told King that if he didn’t cancel, Powell would tell journalists a lie that King was having a homosexual affair with his mentor, Bayard Rustin. King stuck to his plan and led a protest — even though such a rumor would not only have harmed King, but also would have undermined the credibility of the entire civil rights movement. Remember, this was 1960. Before the March on Washington, before passage of the Voting Rights Act, before the dismantling of the very Jim Crow laws Powell had vowed to dismantle when first running for office.

That threat, my friends, is the most important part of the story.

It’s not that Powell didn’t want the best for the country. It’s just that he wanted to be seen as the one doing it and was willing to derail the good stemming from the civil rights movement to secure his own place in power. There have always been people willing to make such trade-offs. Sometimes they dress up their intentions with scriptures to make it more palatable; other times they play on our darkest fears. They do not care how many people get hurt in the process, even if it’s the same people they profess to care for.

That was true in Los Angeles in 1960.

Advertisement

That was true in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.

That is true in the streets of America today.

Whether we are talking about an older pastor who is threatened by the growing influence of a younger voice or a president clinging to office after losing an election: To remain king, some men are willing to burn the entire kingdom down.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

Published

on

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from stopping subsidies on childcare programs in five states, including Minnesota, amid allegations of fraud.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, a Biden appointee, didn’t rule on the legality of the funding freeze, but said the states had met the legal threshold to maintain the “status quo” on funding for at least two weeks while arguments continue.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns.

The programs include the Child Care and Development Fund, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and the Social Services Block Grant, all of which help needy families.

Advertisement

USDA IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDS ALL FEDERAL FUNDING TO MINNESOTA AMID FRAUD INVESTIGATION 

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“Families who rely on childcare and family assistance programs deserve confidence that these resources are used lawfully and for their intended purpose,” HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said in a statement on Tuesday.

The states, which include California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York, argued in court filings that the federal government didn’t have the legal right to end the funds and that the new policy is creating “operational chaos” in the states.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian at his nomination hearing in 2022.  (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Advertisement

In total, the states said they receive more than $10 billion in federal funding for the programs. 

HHS said it had “reason to believe” that the programs were offering funds to people in the country illegally.

‘TIP OF THE ICEBERG’: SENATE REPUBLICANS PRESS GOV WALZ OVER MINNESOTA FRAUD SCANDAL

The table above shows the five states and their social safety net funding for various programs which are being withheld by the Trump administration over allegations of fraud.  (AP Digital Embed)

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.”

Advertisement

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.” (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital has reached out to HHS for comment.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending