GOPers Skeptical of Trump’s Ukraine Loan Idea, Say It Won’t Be Paid

• President Trump has floated the idea of ​​providing U.S. aid to Ukraine in the form of loans to be repaid.
• But Republicans on Capitol Hill are skeptical that will happen.
• “I think the loan ends up being a subsidy,” said one House Republican.

"Are You a CEO, Director, or Founder interested in a Feature Interview?"

All Interviews are 100% FREE of Charge

A relatively new idea is emerging in politics, and former President Donald Trump is pushing it. That is, what would happen if support for Ukraine were provided in the form of loans.

“We should lend them money,” President Trump said at a rally in Ohio on Saturday. “If they succeed, they face a huge disadvantage, but if they succeed, they give us the money back.”

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a staunch Trump ally and supporter of Ukraine, expressed this idea during a weekend trip to Kiev. Several other Republicans also seem open to the idea.

I should say up front that this idea probably won’t go anywhere.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters on Wednesday that “time is running out” to help the country, calling for the House to pass the $93.5 billion Ukraine-Israel aid bill that the Senate passed last month. He dismissed the idea, saying that it should be done.

There are also few details about how such a “loan” plan would work. Of the roughly $60 billion for Ukraine included in the Senate aid bill, more than $48.4 billion would go toward purchasing and manufacturing U.S. weapons to send to Ukraine, with the rest going to direct financial aid to the besieged country. There is. It is unclear whether Ukraine will ask for the full $60 billion or just direct aid.

But President Trump’s proposal is a slightly softer position than the hardline anti-Ukraine aid stance taken by many Republicans on Capitol Hill, and sheds interesting light on the nature of Republican opposition to further Ukraine aid. .

So even if it’s a loan, many people are still against it.

“The loan proposal doesn’t avoid the fundamental problem,” said Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio, saying the U.S. should send aid to Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan no matter what the circumstances. He claimed that he did not have sufficient manufacturing capacity. financed. “We have to choose, but I don’t want to choose Ukraine.”

There is also the issue of whether or not you will be able to repay your debt. Mr Graham has indicated that the loan could be forgiven, meaning it would be little different from the current aid plan.

“I think the loans will end up being grants,” said Rep. Tom Tiffany of Wisconsin.

Several Republican lawmakers acknowledged that a loan would be preferable to additional aid, but argued that Ukraine would lack the resources to repay the loan.

“I don’t think Ukraine has anything unless they’re willing to give us a piece of their country, which we don’t want,” said Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville. said. “I didn’t vote to give them money, so we really need to look at it.”

“My question is, what are we going to collect? A war-torn country that basically has no economy,” said Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina. “So how do I get my money back?”

But for Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, a supporter of aid to Ukraine, the idea that the loan won’t be repaid is part of what makes him comfortable with the idea.

“That’s fine. It’s unlikely that Ukraine will have to pay back, so it doesn’t make much of a difference,” Romney said. “If we have to do it as a loan to get it through the House, so be it.”

Ultimately, the feasibility of such an idea appears to depend on whether Ukraine can repay the aid.

“I just don’t know what to make of it,” Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley said of the loan proposal. “I mean, if they actually paid it back, that’s a different story. But they wouldn’t, right? I mean, if they had the money, they’d spend it. ?”