Why Speaker Johnson Must Allow a Vote on Foreign Assistance
The consequences of allowing Ukraine to fall would be catastrophic for American interests and could put American lives at risk.

TWENTY-TWO SENATE REPUBLICANS joined with Democrats to pass a foreign assistance package for Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel. Their action comes none too soon. Ukrainian soldiers are dying in greater numbers because of shortages of arms and ammunition.
The focus now turns to House Speaker Mike Johnson. He threatens to block the aid bill at the behest of Donald Trump, who on Saturday all but invited Vladimir Putin to invade Europe. Blocking aid for Ukraine would mean betraying a U.S. commitment and making the world yet more dangerous for America.
Last fall, Johnson opposed assistance for Ukraine unless it was packaged with steps to enhance security on the southern border. As the Senate produced a bill combining assistance for Ukraine and Israel with tough border security measures, Johnson talked to Trump, after which he opposed the Senate effort. Now, the Senate has passed a bill with assistance for Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel only, without any border provisions—and Johnson complains that the bill doesn’t address the border.
Johnson cares little about Ukraine, it seems. Hopefully he cares more about vital U.S. interests and the lives of American soldiers.
American presidents have regarded a stable and secure Europe as a vital interest for more than seven decades. It’s no wonder why: The last three times there have been large-scale wars between European countries, America has been drawn in. Moreover, Europe is America’s largest trade and investment partner. If Putin wins in Ukraine, Europe will be less stable and less secure. It will require more attention from the United States, even as NATO members continue to boost their defense spending.
Putin’s motivation for invading Ukraine—like his motivation for invading Georgia in 2008 and keeping Belarus under his thumb, especially since 2020—derive from his neo-imperialist desire to recover parts of the Russian Empire lost when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Would a future Putin in three or five years, emboldened by victory in Ukraine and having rebuilt his army, seek to recover Moldova or the Baltic states?
Many analysts pooh-pooh the idea of a Russian threat to the Baltic states, since they are members of NATO and the European Union. But few prior to 2021 anticipated the assault Putin unleashed on Ukraine in February 2022. No one should underestimate his ambitions.
What lessons would Putin draw from the United States ending assistance for Ukraine two years into a fight that has cost the life of not one American soldier? Would he calculate—or miscalculate—that the United States would not go to war for a country like Estonia, a country most Americans could not find on a map? What if he just wanted part of Estonia? Or just parts of several countries? Bear in mind Mr. Putin’s propensity for gross miscalculation: He expected the Russian army to occupy Kyiv in a matter of days.
Were Putin to misjudge Washington’s commitment to NATO and attack Estonia, U.S. troops in Europe would be fighting—and dying—from day one. A direct military clash between NATO and Russia would risk escalation to nuclear weapons. That is the jeopardy that Johnson’s political gamesmanship raises for America.
Europe has pledged to continue supporting Ukraine but cannot match American industrial or military capacity. The Senate bill will provide $60 billion to give the Ukrainian military the tools it needs to resist the Russian invader and defend European NATO in the process. Contrary to popular misconception, however, the bill includes very little money to be delivered directly to the Ukrainians.
Instead, the bulk of the $60 billion will be spent in the United States, with much of it funding new arms for the U.S. military to replace older weapons sent to Ukraine out of U.S. stockpiles. For example, Precision Strike Missiles, which have a longer range and greater lethality, will replace the HIMARS rockets that go to Ukraine.
Providing arms and assistance to Ukraine is a wise defense investment. For a small percentage of the Pentagon’s budget and no U.S. troops, the United States can help Ukraine defeat Russia, which has proclaimed America its main adversary.
Helping Ukraine is not only the smart thing to do; it also upholds America’s word. When the Soviet Union collapsed, Ukraine had on its territory intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear-capable bombers, and some 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads. Those would have sufficed to devastate every American city with 50,000 people or more three times over.
As a result of lengthy talks, Ukraine agreed to give up those weapons, conceding its interests to America’s. A key factor in Ukraine’s decision was a pledge, secured with the help of American negotiators, from Russia to respect Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity. During the negotiations, Ukrainian officials asked whether the United States would respond if Russia violated that pledge. U.S. officials assured them the United States would take action.
If Johnson now torpedoes U.S. assistance for Ukraine, his lack of understanding of foreign affairs and moral cowardice will put a stain on America’s name and endanger the United States, its military personnel, and its citizens. He should do the right thing, put country before politics, and allow the House to vote on the assistance bill.