What Is Kevin McCarthy Thinking? 

In an interview with PunchBowl News published on Tuesday, House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy said the following about future funding for Ukrainians fighting to repel the Russian invasion of their country: 

I think people are gonna be sitting in a recession and they’re not going to write a blank check to Ukraine. They just won’t do it. . . . It’s not a free blank check. And then there’s the things [the Biden administration] is not doing domestically. Not doing the border and people begin to weigh that. Ukraine is important, but at the same time it can’t be the only thing they do and it can’t be a blank check. 

An awful lot turns on exactly what McCarthy means by a “blank check” — a term he used three times in his brief comment that acknowledged that Ukraine “is important.” National Review emailed McCarthy’s office on Tuesday and again on Friday asking for clarity but received no reply.

Over at the Dispatch, Haley Byrd Wilt asks the right questions:

Do his comments mean future spending on Ukraine could have Republican support in the House, so long as it includes robust oversight provisions? That’s what the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee theorized afterward. The idea doesn’t come out of nowhere: Republicans like Sen. Rand Paul have pushed for more accountability over how the money is spent. Or was McCarthy airing skepticism about the prospects for any Ukraine aid?

. . .

McCarthy’s comments could prompt lawmakers to pass more Ukraine aid than they had initially planned after the midterm elections and before the new Congress convenes.

In May, the $40 billion stand-alone bill to aid Ukraine passed the Senate 86–11 and the House 368–57. The small minority of Republicans who voted “no” mainly objected to the funding either because it lacked that extra layer of oversight Rand Paul sought, or because the bill was not paid for with spending cuts elsewhere. 

Contrary to Paul’s argument at the time, the $40 billion bill did include significant oversight provisions, the Wall Street Journal reported:

The bill’s passage was delayed about a week after Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) thwarted an attempt to fast-track the Senate bill on Friday. He wanted language to be added that would give the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction oversight of the money and weapons the U.S. is sending to Ukraine, and he raised concerns about further deficit spending to fund the package.

The Ukraine legislation sets aside $5 million for oversight of emergency funds, including $4 million for the State Department inspector general and $1 million for the U.S. Agency for International Development inspector general. There is also a provision that would require the Defense Department to report on measures taken to keep track of equipment provided to Ukraine.

Is an inspector general all McCarthy wants? Or does he want more funding to secure the border?

Republicans will surely try to pursue an agenda different from Democrats’ if they control the House, but McCarthy has been around long enough to know that the Senate filibuster exists, and setting unrealistic expectations often ends in disaster for the GOP. See the 2013 “defund Obamacare” fight and the 2015 “defund Planned Parenthood” fight. McCarthy will need to be careful about his precise demands.

Over the past 72 hours, McCarthy has failed to answer questions about what he meant, despite apparent rebukes from former vice president Mike Pence and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: 

Noah Rothman notes that McCarthy’s comments are foolish as a matter of electoral politics: “Reuters polled American adults in early October and found that 73 percent continue to support the Ukrainian war effort, including two-thirds of self-described Republicans.”

So, what exactly is McCarthy thinking? Until he offers a clear explanation, he will simply appear more concerned about catering to the preferences of a quarter of his caucus than sending a strong signal of support to an ally fighting a defensive war against Russia.