Democrats in both chambers suggest they’re willing to support
Ukraine aid in the form of a loan, an idea that’s gaining steam with Kyiv’s GOP champions as they scramble to end Congress’s deadlock and help Ukraine battle
Russian forces. The loan design is not the Democrats’ preference. They’re urging the adoption of an emergency foreign aid package the
Senate passed last month, which includes $60 billion in aid for Ukraine, while hammering Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) for his refusal to put it on the House floor. But if the loan strategy — which Johnson floated to
Republican senators last week — can break the impasse, a number of
Democrats say they’re all for it. “Democrats support aid to Ukraine. Whether you call it a loan, or whatever, get ‘em some resources,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson (Miss.), the senior Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee. “You’ve got to get them some help. So if it comes in a loan, it’s help; if it comes as an aid package with no requirements, it’s still help.” The loan strategy has gained traction among
Republicans in recent weeks, not least because former
President Trump is using the campaign trail to promote the idea that all U.S. foreign aid should take the form of loans. Few believe that Ukraine would ever pay back the loans, given the trillions of dollars in reconstruction costs Kyiv is sure to face whenever the Russian conflict ends. But the loan design might provide some political cover to leery Republicans, who could pitch the idea to their constituents as a strategy for easing the financial burden on U.S. taxpayers. Over the weekend, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) raised the proposal to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, arguing that the suggest that “turning aid from the
United States into a no-interest, waivable loan is the most likely path forward.” And Democrats are increasingly open to that concept if it’s seen as the last best chance for securing Ukraine aid before November’s
elections. “Ukraine desperately needs money, and we’re trying to find any way possible to get that money out the door. I don’t know what kind of ransom the Republicans are going to demand, but I do understand the urgency of this moment,” Sen.
Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said. “If there’s a way to structure money to Ukraine in a way that gets Republican votes, then I’d sure take a hard look at that.” Conversations in recent weeks have centered in the House, as Johnson weighs how he can move funds for Ukraine despite growing opposition within his ranks and from Trump. No action on the subject is expected until mid-April at the earliest; both chambers will leave for a two-week recess in the coming days. Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Johnson said Ukraine aid remains a priority — “We understand the importance of sending a strong signal to the world that we stand by our allies” — but emphasized that he hasn’t landed on a set plan for moving it. “I’ve not specifically talked about the mechanism of funding Ukraine,” he said. “There’s talk about what we call the Repo Act … where you could use the seized assets of Russian oligarchs in some manner to pay for the support of Ukraine. … And then the loan concept is being discussed.” The House will address the issue “immediately” after
Congress has funded the government, he said. But the sentiment among Republicans is that a loan would have to be the avenue to get Ukraine funds across the finish line, one Senate Republican told The Hill, and that the level of bipartisan support will depend on what else is in the overall package. The emergency supplemental the Senate passed last month included aid for Israel, the Indo-Pacific and for humanitarian purposes. “If the House did something like that … that was the form that they sent it back, I can’t imagine it would be rejected over here because it became a loan,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), who voted for the aid bill last month and argued that GOP support for the aid could increase if it is framed as a loan. There are also political issues at hand, as the 2024 general
election campaign is already in full bloom, but the desire among Democrats for the aid package is expected to override those considerations, including that Trump has blessed the loan idea. “It’s hard to see why [Democrats] would object, other than it was Donald Trump’s idea, and hopefully we’re over that,” Cramer said. “The aid is necessary. Ukraine needs it. Israel needs it. Frankly, we need it.” Not everyone, however, is on board. “Keep in mind that both Israel and Ukraine — but especially Ukraine — have got to borrow a lot of money in order to deal with this war,” said Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), a senior member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. “So if you’re going to impair their credit-worthiness — and even Israel’s credit rating has gone down — that’s hurting your ally while pretending to help your ally. “So these are not good changes.” The wide belief is that of the $60 billion bookmarked in aid for Ukraine, only $12 billion is slated to be handed over to Kyiv directly, while the other $48 billion would go into the U.S. industrial complex for weapons. It’s that $12 billion that Republicans are eyeing for loans. Leading Ukraine advocates on both sides of the aisle, however, have pooh-poohed the idea and have cited the need to move quickly to greenlight this aid to help the war-torn nation. “We’re running out of time, and the best way to get Ukraine the help they need is for the House to pass the Senate bill. The problem with changing it is … it can take you three days to do the simplest thing here in the Senate. We don’t have the time,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters. Others indicated that they simply do not trust what could emerge from the House GOP in what they considered a half-baked idea on a subject that has international consequences. “It just sort of feels like a back-of-the-napkin idea that no one’s really fleshed out,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who led Democrats in negotiations on the bipartisan Ukraine-border bill that was ultimately tanked by conservatives. “Pass the Senate bill. Let’s get this done. Stop f‑‑‑ing around,” he added.