Fresh Senate request for $55 billion for Ukraine
Why it matters: It's the first formal attempt to convince President Trump to send fresh military assistance for Ukraine in his second term.
It comes as Trump is growing increasingly frustrated with President Vladimir Putin and his reluctance to end a war that has dragged on for more than three years.
The funding request, which both chambers would need to approve follows a successful effort by the Senate to pressure Trump to impose sanctions on Russia.
Congress passed $61 billion for Ukraine last April, which was signed into law by President Biden. Some of that money is still available.
"There is continued bipartisan resolve to sustain Ukraine's valiant fight for freedom by helping Ukraine obtain the air defense needed to protect its civilian population centers, including schools and hospitals, from Russia's relentless drone and missile attacks," Shaheen said in a statement.
Zoom out: Earlier this summer, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), led a successful effort to convince Trump to impose so-called secondary sanctions to hurt Russia, hitting other countries with high tariffs for buying Russian exports like oil and natural gas.
Their legislation, which ultimately collected 85 cosponsors, never received a floor vote, but the senators claimed victory when Trump embraced its basic framework.
After initially questioning the legislation, Trump promised on July 14 to impose "very severe" sanctions on Russia if it didn't achieve a peace deal with Ukraine in 50 days.
Trump shortened the deadline to 10 to 12 days on Monday, during an appearance with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
Zoom in: The Shaheen and Murkowski legislation would also codify the mineral deal that Trump signed earlier this year, according to the New York Times, which first reported on the new appropriations bill.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump set to announce replacement for Fed Gov Kugler this week. The Fed chair in waiting?
President Trump said he plans to name a replacement this week for Federal Reserve governor Adriana Kugler, whose unexpected resignation set for this Friday offers the president an opportunity to put in place a successor for Fed Chair Jerome Powell. 'I have a couple of people in mind,' President Trump told reporters Sunday night. 'I'll be announcing that probably over the next couple of days.' Kugler's term as a governor was set to expire on Jan. 31. She has served as a Fed governor since Sept. 13, 2023, and will return to Georgetown University as a professor this fall. Kevin Warsh, a former Fed governor, and Kevin Hassett, the current chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, are thought to be at the top of the list for the next Fed chair and thus possible nominees to replace Kugler. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who is leading the search for Powell's replacement and is also a potential contender, has already sketched out a scenario where the White House appoints someone to fill Kugler's seat who can then be in the running to succeed Powell next May. The White House also hopes that Powell decides to leave the Fed Board of Governors when his chairmanship is up, which would open up a second seat that Trump can fill. Powell has not yet said whether he intends to do that; his term as a Fed governor is not up until 2028. Read more: How much control does the president have over the Fed and interest rates? Warsh already has a lot of experience navigating the central bank. He served as Fed governor from 2006 until 2011 and became former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke's liaison to Wall Street during the chaos of the 2008 financial crisis. He is also a known figure to Trump, who interviewed him for the Fed chair post eight years ago before deciding on Powell. Trump appointed Powell to be Fed chair in 2018 at the direction of then-Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. Former President Joe Biden reappointed Powell in 2022. Warsh has been critical of the Fed as of late. He has suggested that the Fed could look through increases in inflation from tariffs because it would be a one-time increase in prices. He's also argued that the costs involved in renovating the Fed's headquarters represent one of several examples of how the Fed "has lost its way" and that the American people "need a reformer to fix" the institution and rebuild its credibility. "Frankly, it's about breaking some heads," he said on Fox Business last month, calling for "regime change." Back in April, Warsh gave a speech in Washington, D.C., in which he said that the Fed's "current wounds are largely self-inflicted" and called for a "strategic reset" to ease a loss of credibility and damage to the Fed's standing. Hassett, meanwhile, already has a close relationship with Trump, given that he advises the president on economic policy and also served in the first Trump administration. Read more: How jobs, inflation, and the Fed are all related Earlier in the year, Hassett said he was more focused on the 10-year Treasury yield (^TNX) than on any quick monetary policy changes at the Federal Reserve. While the Fed can influence short-term bond yields and long-term bond yields, longer-term bond yields are influenced by many factors outside the Fed, and it is the yield on the 10-year Treasury that influences mortgage rates. But lately, Hassett has been more blatant, saying there's no reason why the Fed shouldn't be cutting rates now, something the president has repeatedly hammered the central bank to do. The president will likely watch whoever he appoints to the open Fed governor position to see how they perform and whether they'd be a successor for Powell, whose term ends next May. Though Fed governors Chris Waller and Michelle Bowman are also jockeying for the position of Fed chair, in part by dissenting at last week's Fed policy meeting in favor of cutting rates by 25 basis points, rather than holding rates steady. The opportunity for the White House to fill Kugler's seat earlier than expected comes as Trump applies pressure on Powell and the Fed board to lower rates by as many as 3 percentage points. Whoever the president appoints, it is the Federal Open Market Committee, which is composed of 19 members, that makes the decision, not just the Fed chair, and the new chair will have to contend with the committee. Jennifer Schonberger is a veteran financial journalist covering markets, the economy, and investing. At Yahoo Finance she covers the Federal Reserve, Congress, the White House, the Treasury, the SEC, the economy, cryptocurrencies, and the intersection of Washington policy with finance. Follow her on X @Jenniferisms and on Instagram. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Buzz Feed
17 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
Marjorie Taylor Greene Just Dropped A Truth Bomb About The Republican Party
Marjorie Taylor Greene is NOT happy with the Republican Party. She was pissed about the attack on Iran. She broke ranks with Republicans and called the crisis in Gaza a "genocide." And she won't stop talking about how Republicans won't deal with the national debt. Now, she's talking about breaking up with the Republican Party. In an interview with the Daily Mail, the Congress member said: "I don't know if the Republican Party is leaving me, or if I'm kind of not relating to Republican Party as much anymore. I don't know which one it is." She also said: "I think the Republican Party has turned its back on America First and the workers and just regular Americans." And finally, she criticized the way Republicans treat women: "I think there's other women in our party that are really sick and tired of the way men treat Republican women." Those anti-GOP quotes are going viral in a tweet by Brian Tyler Cohen: People in the replies are, like, duh: "What if she switches parties and becomes a normie dem," one person asked. "I really never thought i'd see that day she was saying shit like this and uttering the word 'genocide'…" another person said in disbelief. And then the Lincoln Project invited her to the party: "Welcome to the resistance, Marge." As this person said, "Trumps presidency is so goddamn bad that it wokeified marjorie taylor green."
The Hill
17 minutes ago
- The Hill
Why you're getting debanked, and how lawmakers can stop it happening
For two decades, I have worked with policymakers and law enforcement in North America and Europe to strengthen the financial safeguards that keep state sponsors of terrorism, violent extremist groups, weapons proliferators and criminal networks from exploiting the U.S. banking system. I have supported tough sanctions. I have pushed to close loopholes that hindered enforcement. And I have worked to hold those who enable illicit finance and trade, wittingly or not, to account. From the beginning, banks have been essential partners in these efforts. Through 'Know Your Customer' procedures and the anti-money laundering laws that followed the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, financial institutions have supplied the data and intelligence that help law enforcement uncover illegal activities such as human-trafficking rings, fentanyl supply chains and terror-financing networks. These frameworks played a critical role in safeguarding the country. Unfortunately, some of the tools intended to identity and stop criminal activity are now targeting and unjustly driving lawful customers lawful customers out of the financial system — a phenomenon widely known as 'debanking.' Most Americans are unaware that any cash transaction over $10,000 triggers the creation of a Currency Transaction Report that is filed with the federal government. That dollar amount threshold was set when Lyndon Johnson was in the White House and, incredibly, has never been updated to account for inflation. In today's economy, $10,000 might barely cover the cost of a used car. Yet banks are still required to flag such transactions, regardless of context, producing millions of reports every year that offer little value to law enforcement. Suspicious Activity Reports are yet another layer of government scrutiny. Banks filed more than 4 million Suspicious Activity Reports just last year, according to the Treasury Department. Former officials concede this avalanche of paperwork does little to improve public safety. In fact, it can create a burden for investigators seeking to identify and separate the truly suspicious activity from the mundane. When enforcement cannot separate the signal from the noise, it becomes dangerous. Meanwhile, regulators continue to pressure banks to apply broad risk labels to entire industries simply because they involve cash-heavy businesses, serve overseas clients or operate in unfavored sectors — all in the name of keeping our financial system 'safe and sound.' This isn't theoretical. Religious charities, international aid organizations and countless immigrant-owned businesses have all faced the threat of debanking. They are not terrorists or criminals. They are fellow Americans being pushed to the financial margins by a system that confuses bureaucracy with vigilance. Congress is beginning to address the problem through the Financial Institution Regulatory Modernization Act. This legislation would increase transparency and accountability in how agencies issue guidance and conduct examinations of financial institutions and their customers. It would help ensure that banks are not penalized for serving lawful customers in politically sensitive sectors. It's an encouraging start, but it will not be enough by itself. The single most effective step policymakers could take today to address the unintended debanking of lawful citizens is to modernize the anti-money laundering framework. Modernization should ensure banks provide relevant and actionable information that truly helps investigators and allows financial institutions to replace box-ticking alerts and reporting with data analysis that spots real patterns of abuse. Banks would still verify identities, monitor accounts and file reports the moment they see suspicious activity. These reforms would sharpen these responsibilities and make our country and the banking industry safer. Further, clear standards would let financial institutions maintain relationships with lawful customers while giving authorities faster access to data when real dangers emerge. The U.S. led the world in building a financial system hostile to terrorist financing and illicit finance. That leadership depends on a financial system that is both secure, credible and widely accessible. When honest actors are pushed out incorrectly, arbitrarily, and without transparency, and financial access is treated as a privilege rather than a right, the foundation of that leadership begins to erode. Policymakers do not need to choose between security and fairness. A modernized anti-money laundering regime would strengthen both. It would allow regulators and institutions to focus attention on those posing a real risk and reduce the burden on both law-abiding financial institutions and their customers I have spent much of my life trying to make America safer by making our financial system harder to exploit. That mission still matters. But the tools we built decades ago are not suited to today's challenges. Without reform, the anti-money laundering regime will continue to fail in its most basic duty: distinguishing between friend and foe. Congress and the administration should act now. The stakes are too high to allow inertia to carry the day. regulations.
