U.S. Aid to Ukraine, Explained

When asked whether Republicans would “make it more difficult” for Congress to approve Ukrainian aid, Rep. Mike Turner criticized the $40 billion package enacted in May, saying: “We don’t need to pass $40 billion large Democrat bills … to send $8 billion to Ukraine.” Much more than that, however, was allocated for military support.

The aid legislation, which passed with broad bipartisan approval, included about $19 billion for military support, though not all of that will be transferred to Ukraine. For instance, a chunk of it is allocated for replenishing U.S. stocks of weapons that have gone or will go to Ukraine to assist the country in its defense against Russia.

The rest of the $40 billion included humanitarian and economic aid, among other measures. We’ll break down how the funding was allocated.

Turner, who is the ranking GOP member of the House intelligence committee, made his remarks on ABC’s “This Week” on Nov. 27. He went on to say, “What we’re going to do — and it’s been very frustrating, obviously, even to the Ukrainians where they hear these large numbers in the United States as a result of the, you know, burgeoned Democrat bills and the little amount of aid that they receive. We’re going to make certain they get what they need.”

His office told us he was talking about the direct, lethal aid going to Ukraine, and the $8 billion he cited was an example of how there is “confusion” over the funding. We asked what specifically the $8 billion referred to, but we didn’t get an answer to that.

He was “not objecting to other funding in the bill,” Turner’s office said, noting that the lawmaker had voted for it.

So did most Congress members in his party, but 57 Republicans voted no in the House and 11 Senate Republicans dissented. Their objections included that the bill was too large and that some of the money was better spent on domestic issues. The White House in November asked Congress to approve another $37.7 billion for Ukrainian aid this month, setting up a situation for potential friction over U.S. support for Ukraine.

In January, Republicans will control the House, and Kevin McCarthy, the House GOP leader, has said there won’t be a “blank check to Ukraine.”

On “This Week,” GOP Rep. Michael McCaul echoed that sentiment, saying that lawmakers had little time to review the $40 billion package and that “we are going to provide more oversight, transparency and accountability.”

What’s in the $40 Billion Aid Package?

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February, Congress has approved a total of $66 billion in aid to support Ukraine. That includes the $40 billion supplemental appropriations legislation passed in May — the only standalone aid bill — and $13.6 billion passed as part of a much larger omnibus appropriations bill in March and $12.35 billion in a continuing resolution bill enacted in September to fund the government through Dec. 16.

As we said, that $40 billion package included $19 billion in military funding for Ukraine, though not all of that goes directly to the country. Mark F. Cancian, a retired Marine colonel and senior adviser at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, told us that figure is “a fair number” for the amount of military aid to Ukraine in the legislation.

It includes $6 billion for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, a Defense Department fund that pays for training, weapons and other military assistance; $9 billion to replenish U.S. weapons sent to Ukraine; and $4 billion for the Foreign Military Financing Program, a program of the State and Defense Departments that enables Ukraine (and other approved countries) to purchase new military equipment from the U.S.

We relied on Cancian’s breakdown as well as the House Committee on Appropriations’ summary and the full text of the legislation for these figures.

Another $3.9 billion was allocated for U.S. troops deployed to Europe as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. “These forces were sent to reassure eastern NATO allies that the United States stood with them in a crisis and to discourage any Russian adventurism against Eastern Europe,” Cancian wrote in a May commentary piece on CSIS’ website a few days after President Joe Biden signed the bill into law.

Other military or defense spending that doesn’t go to Ukraine but is arguably related to the conflict includes $500 million to U.S. allies. “Money in this package likely reimburses allies and partners for equipment that they have sent to Ukraine,” Cancian wrote, saying that under this “win-win-win” arrangement, Eastern European allies give Ukraine old equipment and then can buy newer equipment. “The U.S. defense industry can sell more products.”

The Defense Department also got $500 million to procure “critical munitions” to increase its stocks, the House committee summary says; $600 million “to mitigate industrial base constraints for faster missile production and expanded domestic capacity of strategic and critical minerals”; and $364 million for research and development “to respond to the situation in Ukraine and for related expenses,” the legislation said. Cancian told us that these items are “not necessarily bad ideas, but in my opinion they should’ve gone through the regular appropriations process,” since they’re “not immediate needs for Ukraine” and the spending won’t happen for a long time.

He wrote in his commentary that supplemental appropriations are for emergency situations, but they often “become ‘Christmas trees’ onto which advocates can hang initiatives that did not get funded through the regular cycle.” And some aspects of this aid legislation “have the air of ‘Christmas tree ornaments.’”

What we’ve described so far adds up to nearly $25 billion. The rest of the $40 billion package, or about $15 billion, is for humanitarian and economic aid.

That includes $8.8 billion for an Economic Support Fund for Ukraine’s government, to combat human trafficking and “to prevent and respond to global food insecurity,” the committee’s summary says. The White House says this funding also can go toward providing “food, energy, and health care services for the Ukrainian people,” countering Russian disinformation, and supporting “small- and medium- sized agrobusinesses” and natural gas purchases by Ukraine.

The humanitarian aid also includes $4.35 billion for the U.S. Agency for International Development for disaster assistance, which would be, in the words of the committee summary, “emergency food assistance to people around the world suffering from hunger as a result of the conflict in Ukraine”; $900 million for Ukrainian refugees in the U.S.; $350 million for Ukrainian refugee assistance for other countries; $650 million for the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and an international food security program; and hundreds of millions more for the State Department for embassy security, diplomatic support, nonproliferation programs and narcotics control/law enforcement programs for Ukraine.

The legislation included $5 million for inspectors general to provide oversight of the appropriations.

Finally, in addition to the funding, the legislation increases the president’s drawdown authority by $11 billion to provide defense equipment and services to Ukraine and allies in the region in the future. This allows the president to send equipment from existing U.S. inventories. Congress then needs to appropriate money separately to replenish the stocks.

Total Ukraine Aid

As we said, Congress has approved a total of $66 billion for aid to Ukraine this year. And it can be confusing to see that figure and yet see other announcements of much smaller totals for security assistance or equipment transfers.

For instance, the latest DOD press release, dated Nov. 23, on a drawdown of military equipment being sent to Ukraine said the U.S. “has committed more than $19.7 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since the beginning of the Biden Administration.” An Oct. 21 Congressional Research Service report said security assistance had totaled “about $17.6 billion” since the start of the war in Ukraine.

But as we’ve explained, the appropriations include funding for other military and humanitarian programs beyond military equipment or security assistance for Ukraine.

“Confusion sometimes arises because [of] the way the administration periodically announces aid packages,” Cancian wrote in a Nov. 18 post on the total amount of Ukraine aid. Those occasional DOD releases, however, “describe how the administration is using the money.”

Cancian wrote that altogether military aid has totaled $38.2 billion.

That includes $17 billion in short-term military aid, such as weapons and training; $10.4 billion in long-term military aid, which is “money that Ukraine can use to buy new weapons, mostly from the United States but also elsewhere,” Cancian said; $9.6 billion for U.S. military operations in the region; and $1.2 billion for general Defense Department support.

It can take a while to spend some of this money. “For the kinds of equipment being procured to support Ukraine, it takes about a year to get onto contract, then two more years before the first item is delivered and another year or more for the remaining items to be delivered,” Cancian wrote. “That means that money Congress appropriates in year one does not get fully spent until year five.”

The White House has called on Congress to pass another $37.7 billion in Ukraine aid before the Dec. 16 deadline to continue funding the government in fiscal 2023.


Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. 

The post U.S. Aid to Ukraine, Explained appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Related articles

Gabe Davis: “Go Out There And Keep Working” | Buffalo Bills

Wide Receiver Gabe Davis addressed the media...

Seeing the National Guard on our streets is bad — but we must beware Trump’s Plan B



I saw some of my former Naval War College colleagues at the recent No Kings rally in Providence. Given that National Guard troops and protestors had clashed in Los Angeles at an earlier June rally protesting ICE raids, we wondered whether we would see National Guard troops as we marched, where they would be from, and their mission? We didn’t. That doesn’t mean, however, that there is no need for concern about the future.

The National Guard is unique to the U.S. military given it is under the authority of both state governors and the federal government and has both a domestic and federal mission. Governors can call up the National Guard when states have a crisis, either a natural disaster or a human-made one. Federal authorities can call on the National Guard for overseas deployment and to enforce federal law.

President Dwight Eisenhower used both federalized National Guard units and regular U.S. Army units to enforce desegregation laws in Arkansas in 1957. But using military troops to intimidate citizens and support partisan politics, especially by bringing National Guard units from other states has never been, and should never be, part of its mission.

But that’s what is happening now.

A host of Democratic U.S. senators, led by Dick Durbin of Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has called for an inquiry into the Trump administration’s recent domestic deployment of active-duty and National Guard troops to Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Portland, Oregon, and Memphis, Tennessee.

In an Oct. 17 letter to the Defense Department’s Inspector General, the senators challenge the legality of the domestic troop deployment and charge that it undermines military readiness and politicizes the nation’s military.

Ostensibly, the troops have been sent to cities “overrun” with crime. Yet data shows that has not been the case. Troops have been sent to largely Democratic-run cities in Democratic-led states.

The case for political theater being the real reason behind the deployment certainly was strengthened when largely Republican Mississippi sent troops to Washington D.C., even though crime in Mississippi cities like Jackson is higher than in D.C. Additionally, there is an even more dangerous purpose to the troop presence — that of normalizing the idea of troops on the streets, a key facet of authoritarian rule.

There are fundamental differences in training and mission between military troops and civilian law enforcement, with troop presence raising the potential for escalation and excessive force, and the erosion of both civil liberties and military readiness.

Troop deployments have hit some stumbling blocks. Judges, including those appointed by President Donald Trump, have in cases like Portland impeded administration attempts to send troops. Mayors and governors, including Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, have pushed back as well.

While the Trump administration has shown its willingness to ignore the law, it has also shown a significant ability to come up with a “Plan B.” In this case, Plan B, used by many past dictators, is likely the utilization of private military companies (PMC).

Countries have used these mercenary organizations to advance strategic goals abroad in many instances. Though the Wagner Group, fully funded by the Kremlin, was disbanded after a rebellion against the regular Russian military in 2023, Vladimir Putin continues to use PMCs to advance strategic goals in Ukraine and other regions of the world wrapped in a cloak of plausible deniability. Nigeria has used them internally to fight Boko Haram. The United States used Blackwater in Afghanistan in the early days after 9/11. Overall, the use of PMCs abroad is highly controversial as it involves complex tradeoffs between flexibility, expertise and need with considerable risks to accountability, ethics and long-term stability.

Domestically, the use of PMCs offer leaders facing unrest the advantage of creating and operating in legal “gray zones.” Leaders not confident of the loyalty of a country’s armed forces have resorted to these kinds of private armies. Adolf Hitler relied on his paramilitary storm troopers, or “brown shirts” to create and use violence and intimidation against Jews and perceived political opponents. Similarly, Benito Mussolini’s “black shirts,” Serbian paramilitaries, and PMCs in Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya served similar purposes.

President Donald Trump has said he is “open” to the idea of using PMCs to help deport undocumented immigrants. He has militarized Homeland Security agents to send to Portland, evidencing his willingness to circumvent legal challenges. And perhaps most glaringly, poorly qualified and trained masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents are already terrorizing American cities.

At the No Kings rally in Providence my former colleagues and I did see a man in an unfamiliar uniform — with a gun and handcuffs — standing alone on the sidewalk along the march path. He wasn’t doing anything threatening, just watching. In the past, he might not have even been noticed.

But that day he was. Some people even waved to him. Protestors are not yet intimidated, but they are wary, and rightfully so.

Be aware, America. They have a Plan B.

  • Joan Johnson-Freese of Newport is professor emeritus of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College and a Senior Fellow at Women in International Security. She earned a Ph.D. in international relations and affairs from Kent State University. She is an adjunct Government Department faculty member at Harvard Extension and Summer Schools, teaching courses on women, peace & security, grand strategy & U.S. national security and leadership. Her book, “Leadership in War & Peace: Masculine & Feminine,” was released in March 2025 from Routledge. Her website is joanjohnsonfreese.com.

Examining rumor Barron Trump had boyfriend named Carlos

Online users claimed in October 2025 that U.S. President Donald Trump's youngest son was dating an Argentine ballroom dancer.