Breaking Down Biden’s Foreign Aid Proposal

Foreign aid packages are designed as a tool by donor countries to promote economic, political, and social development in recipient countries by providing funds to combat issues such as poverty, natural disasters, and public health crises. This supports shared interests between the donor country and its recipients. In the midst of current conflicts occurring in Israel and Ukraine, President Joe Biden has proposed a $106 billion aid package that would provide support for the two countries. This brief will examine the intricacies surrounding the suggested package and its implications.

At YIP, nuanced policy briefs emerge from the collaboration of six diverse, nonpartisan students.

HeadingHeading 3

Card Title

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet conse adipiscing elit

Card Title

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet conse adipiscing elit

Card Title

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet conse adipiscing elit

Card Title

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet conse adipiscing elit

Support

Executive Summary

Foreign aid packages are designed as a tool by donor countries to promote economic, political, and social development in recipient countries by providing funds to combat issues such as poverty, natural disasters, and public health crises. This supports shared interests between the donor country and its recipients. In the midst of current conflicts occurring in Israel and Ukraine, President Joe Biden has proposed a $106 billion aid package that would provide support for the two countries. This brief will examine the intricacies surrounding the suggested package and its implications. 

Overview

On October 17, Biden asked Congress for $106 billion in aid for Ukraine and Israel in response to the October 7 attack on Israel while continuing support to Ukrainians as they faced a Russian invasion. He argues that the U.S. needs to support these countries, not only for itself but also for American national security interests. Biden's proposed aid package faced some complications as the House previously struggled to find a new Republican speaker. The Senate is particularly divided over the decision to send more aid to Ukraine after $75 billion was already been sent over in 2022. Republicans expressed their displeasure at sending any more money to Ukraine and have pushed for stricter border policies, while Democrats have been trying to push the proposed aid through the Senate.

A. Pointed Summary
  • Biden Seeks $106B Aid
  • Israel-Hamas Conflict
  • Russia-Ukraine Conflict 
  • Senate divided
B. Relevance

Biden's strong commitment to increasing aid for Ukraine and Israel contrasts with dwindling support for Ukraine as the war continues. The White House breaks down the aid package, noting that funds would be for "supporting Israel's Defense Against Terrorism," "providing life-saving humanitarian assistance," "ensuring military readiness," "[providing] Alternatives to People's Republic of China's Coercive Financing in Developing Countries," and "strengthening border security and enforcement." $61.4 billion in aid would go towards Ukraine, $14.3 to Israel, $10 billion for humanitarian assistance, $7.4 billion for Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific region, and $13.6 for addressing security at the U.S.-Mexico border.  As of now, the request has not been passed through, and it is still unclear whether Congress will reach a final verdict on the foreign aid package. 

History

A. Current Stances

The U.S. has a history as a strong ally in terms of military and foreign aid to all three countries in Biden’s proposal. 

Nearly two years after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the U.S. has sent over an estimated $75 billion in foreign aid, with the bulk going toward providing adequate military intelligence and arms to help Ukraine fend off Russian attacks. Despite decreasing domestic support for aid to Ukraine, the U.S. has continued to provide military aid and, controversially, agreed to provide Ukraine cluster munitions in July of 2023.  

Though the U.S. has not yet finalized any aid package to Israel prior to Biden’s proposal, the United States has historically been a strong ally of Israel. Israel has cumulatively received the largest amount of U.S. foreign aid ($124 billion USD) since World War II. Though the proposed $14.3 billion is subject to variability as negotiations continue, it is likely that the U.S. will continue to support Israel. 

The United States has historically sold arms to Taiwan through a government program called Foreign Military Sales (FMS). However, the U.S. sent the first foreign aid package to Taiwan in August of 2023 through the State Department’s Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program. Despite strong Chinese opposition to the aid package, the U.S. sent $80 million to “strengthen Taiwan's self-defense capabilities through joint and combined defense capability and enhanced maritime domain awareness and maritime security capability.” The United States further announced a military aid package of $345 million to Taiwan later that month. 

Policy Problem

A. Stakeholders

Both Israeli and Ukranian citizens are major stakeholders in regards to this bill, as their governments would be receiving large aid packages from the U.S. government. The $14 billion in proposed aid for Israel is intended to assist the Israeli military in defending itself from Hamas’s terror attacks, while the $61 billion aid directed to Ukraine is intended to provide Kyiv with the support they need to combat the Russian military. Top Ukrainian leaders such as Volodymyr Zelenskiy and Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Valery Zaluzhniy and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and commander-in-chief of the IDF Herzi Halevi are all crucial stakeholders as they may be directing their operations based on this foreign aid. The bill also provides for an additional $10 billion in humanitarian aid. U.S. humanitarian organizations, such as UNICEF and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), are stakeholders as this funding would allow these organizations to provide more humanitarian assistance where needed. Thousands of families, many with young children, have been displaced and/or injured as a result of war. This influx of foreign aid would be directed towards resolving some of the harm that has been inflicted by these wars and provide some peace to victims. 

B. Risks of Indifference

If the U.S. chooses to stop sending foreign aid to Ukraine, militarily, they still have sources for funding. Under previous spending bills passed by Congress, Mr. Biden can still draw about $5.6 billion in military materials and equipment from the military’s reserves. The Ukrainian army will still be supported by the U.S. government, just not to the extent that Biden and the Democrats would like. Economic and humanitarian aid raises a greater concern - it is unclear whether the Biden administration has any remaining funds to tap to support Ukraine’s federal budget and to meet the needs of the country’s millions of refugees. If Ukraine is cut off from U.S. humanitarian aid, a humanitarian crisis could transpire. Ukrainian citizens may be cut off from access to healthcare, food, and protection from Russian invaders. Deprivation resulting from the lack of humanitarian aid may lead to social unrest and increased tension within affected populations, and Ukranians will continue to flee their homes in search of better conditions. In addition, the U.S. risks its reputation as a global defender of democracy.  

The Israel aid request is focused on providing military aid: $10.6 billion to provide air and missile defense support, while also replenishing Defense Department military stocks provided to Israel, as well as $3.7 billion to be provided to Israel through the State Department. Without additional aid, Ukraine would need to find an alternative source of funding to continue military operations in Gaza. 

C. Nonpartisan Reasoning

Most Republicans do not approve of the full extent of Biden’s proposed foreign aid, reflecting increasingly-popular isolationist views in the Republican legislature. House Republicans have a new bill that would send about $14 billion to Israel for its war in Gaza without providing any extra funding for Ukraine's defense. The House plan deeply contrasts with President Biden's broader proposal, which asks Congress for more than $100 billion for Ukraine, Israel and other U.S. security needs. Biden’s plan is supported by the vast majority of Democrats and even some Republicans. Many congressional Republicans have said they oppose efforts to link the Israel aid, which they support, to the Ukraine aid, which many of them do not. The bill House Republicans have pushed forward would pay for aid to Israel by cutting the same amount from the IRS, which several critics say could affect taxpayer services and harm enforcement against tax evaders.

Policy Option

While Biden’s proposal is a lump-sum plan that supports a variety of nations, many in Congress disagree, for the political implications this aid could bring. 24 Senate Democrats publicized their opposition to Biden’s $14.3 billion in emergency aid to Israel, citing concerns over Israel's military actions and presence in Gaza. On the right, House Republicans were in favor of funding for Israel, so passed a separate aid bill,  but the majority of Democrats vetoed since the aid money would come out of funding usually reserved for the IRS. The bill is expected to fail in the Senate. Though the House vote was mostly along party lines, some members of the Jewish Caucus backed the aid plan. 

Across the board, Congress is wary of the deeply divisive nature of this package. It does not just raise questions about the American presence abroad, but also begs the question of where this funding should come from, in light of the recent deficit crisis. Originally, Biden proposed $2 billion in aid to Israel, but due to rising tensions and Israel’s increased need for defense funding, Biden decided to up the amount by more than 7 fold when he announced the package late October. 

The House Republican bill represents one alternative to this aid package, and demonstrates reluctance to combine funding for both Ukraine and Israel into one bill. Democrats may also introduce a bill that, conversely, combines funding, but also includes humanitarian aid for Gaza as well. 

Conclusion

Biden’s proposed $106 billion aid package details substantial military support for Israel and Ukraine, allocations for defense, humanitarian assistance, and funds for border security initiatives — aiming to address escalating conflicts and bolster national security interests. The proposed alternatives involve separate bills for each country or combining aid with humanitarian assistance for Gaza, showcasing the multifaceted and divisive nature of the plan. The final decision on the controversial aid package remains uncertain amidst internal disagreements and pending Congressional deliberation. The complex nature of the aid proposal, political and financial considerations over deficit crisis implications, and differing stances within Congress underscore the contentious debate surrounding the allocation of funds, prompting considerations for alternatives and highlighting the need for a balanced, comprehensive approach that aligns with both domestic and foreign policy concerns effectively.

Acknowledgement

The Institute for Youth in Policy wishes to acknowledge Michelle Liou, Joy Park, Nolan Ezzet and other contributors for developing and maintaining the Policy Department within the Institute.

References

Nikhil Daniel

Fellow

Nikhil Daniel is a rising high school freshman located in Central Florida with an interest in International Relations and Geopolitical Conflicts. As such, alongside working in the Effective Discourse Department at YIP, he is also a member of the Foreign Policy Youth Collaborative, board member of his debate team, and class president.

Arya Kumar

Lead Analyst, Criminal Justice Policy

Arya is a junior in high school in Northern Virginia who currently works at Youth Institute for Policy as the Economic Policy Department Head.

Nathaniel Cain

Policy Analyst

Nathaniel is a senior at Brooklyn Technical High School in Brooklyn, NY and will be starting at Cornell University as a Public Policy major in the fall.

Jordyn Ives

Policy Analyst

Jordyn Ives is a freshman at the university of Michigan, hoping to study policy, economics and Spanish. She plans on pursuing law school and working in the foreign service or as a human rights lawyer.

Williana Serve

Policy Analyst

Williana is a current student majoring in Political Science. Her academic interests revolve around economic and social policy. With aspirations to attend law school and embark on a career in corporate law, she spends her free time engrossed in reading articles on current events and writing.

Adisri Swain

Policy Analyst

Similar Policy Briefs

No items found.