If Republicans Take the Senate, What Happens to Ukraine?
The future of American foreign policy might come down to which faction controls the GOP.
WITH THE 2024 ELECTION APPROACHING, and with it the potential for Republicans to gain control of the Senate, the future of American aid to Ukraine is in a precarious position. From my perspective as a former Republican congressman and a vocal advocate for robust U.S. support to Ukraine, the shifting dynamics within the GOP deeply concern me. The party of Ronald Reagan, which once championed the fight against Soviet tyranny, is now seeing a growing faction that questions the need to support Ukraine in its war against Russian aggression. Four senators represent the waxing and waning trends in the Republican party, and their futures could signal the direction of the party—and possibly the country.
Lindsey Graham: The Foreign Policy Hawk
Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is one of Ukraine’s best friends in Congress because he has made an active, muscular American foreign policy a priority for decades. He views the war in Ukraine as a crucial test of U.S. resolve and has consistently called for more military and financial aid to Kyiv. He’s a foreign policy hawk who believes that failing to support Ukraine would embolden other authoritarian regimes around the world, particularly China and Iran.
Should Republicans take control of the Senate, Graham will likely continue to advocate for robust aid packages. However, he could find himself at increasing odds with other members of his party who are less inclined to support such initiatives. He is also constantly at pains to keep himself on Donald Trump’s good side, even if it means sacrificing his principles—including support for Ukraine in its defensive war against Russia.
Mitch McConnell: The Last of the Old Generation
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has been one of the strongest Republican supporters of continued aid to Ukraine. His view aligns with the traditional, hawkish wing of the GOP that sees the fight in Ukraine as not just a regional conflict but as a critical battle in the global contest between democracy and authoritarianism. McConnell has consistently argued that aiding Ukraine is in America’s strategic interest—both to weaken Vladimir Putin’s regime and to send a message to other autocrats, particularly in China, that the United States will stand by its allies.
But McConnell faces increasing pressure from the populist wing of his party. He has already announced that he will step down as leader at the end of this term (but remain a senator through 2026), so he is essentially a lame duck. It’s unlikely that he will have much influence in the party after another leader takes over. Among his possible successors, Sens. John Thune of South Dakota and John Cornyn of Texas date from the pre-Trump GOP, while Sen. Rick Scott of Florida has only served in the Senate in the Trump era. It’s doubtful any of them has the will, political skill, or force of personality to marginalize the isolationist and MAGA influences in the conference as McConnell has.
Josh Hawley: The Isolationist
Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri represents the growing faction within the Republican party pushing for a more isolationist foreign policy. Hawley has been vocal in his opposition to sending more aid to Ukraine, arguing that the United States should focus on its own domestic challenges and shift its foreign policy priorities toward countering China—while studiously avoiding the Chinese participation in Russia’s war effort and the expressed desire of America’s key Pacific allies for Ukraine to win.
Hawley’s position resonates with a portion of the GOP base that feels disillusioned with interventionism after decades of costly wars in the Middle East. He’s positioned himself as the voice of an “America First” foreign policy, questioning why the United States should spend billions abroad when there are pressing needs at home. If Republicans take the Senate and voices like Hawley’s gain more influence, there’s a real possibility that aid to Ukraine could face significant cuts, be tied to increasingly stringent conditions, or end altogether.
JD Vance: Beyond Isolationism
If Trump loses in November, JD Vance remains in the Senate. Vance, like Hawley, has emerged as a leading skeptic of U.S. support for Ukraine, famously saying, “I don’t really care what happens in Ukraine.”
Vance, though, represents almost uniquely another troubling trend in the Republican party: the ascendance of fringe, online thoughts and ideologies. The potential next vice president—and therefore potential future president—admitted that he’s “plugged into a lot of weird right-wing subcultures” (though for some reason this admission came in the context of a discussion of seed oil). He appears to absorb every odd-ball, wacko idea he reads, be it the illiberal nationalism if Hungary’s Victor Orbán, his desire that “the Israelis and the Sunnis . . . police their own region of the world,” or most famously, his embrace of the theory that Haitian immigrants were eating pets in his home state. Isolationism is a legitimate, though flawed policy preference. What Vance represents is something different—a new kind of American foreign policy in which America is more friendly to authoritarian governments than to democratic ones.
It’s hard to know exactly how much influence Vance would have in a second Trump administration or a future Senate Republican Conference. But there are troubling signs that, beyond being a mere isolationist, Vance might be on the side of the bad guys.
THE INTERNAL DIVIDE within the Republican party on Ukraine is emblematic of a larger debate about America’s role in the world. The hawkish, Reagan-era foreign policy that once dominated the GOP is being challenged by a newer, more populist and isolationist approach. Should Republicans take control of the Senate in 2025, the future of U.S. aid to Ukraine will hinge on which faction gains the upper hand.
For those of us who believe in the importance of standing with Ukraine, the stakes couldn’t be higher. A reduction or halt in U.S. aid would be catastrophic for Ukraine’s war effort and would send a dangerous signal to Putin and other authoritarian leaders. It would also undermine decades of U.S. foreign policy aimed at promoting democracy and stability around the world.
But the reality is that a Republican-controlled Senate could mean a more cautious and constrained approach to Ukraine. Senators like McConnell and Graham will continue to fight for robust support, but they may find themselves outnumbered or outflanked by the likes of Hawley and Vance. If the isolationists gain the upper hand, we could see a dramatic shift in U.S. foreign policy—one that pulls back from international commitments and leaves Ukraine to fend for itself.
As someone who has long advocated for a strong U.S. role in defending democracy, I fear what might happen if America turns its back on Ukraine. This war is not just about Ukraine’s survival; it’s about the survival of the rules-based international order that has kept the peace for decades. A Republican-controlled Senate must remember that our support for Ukraine is not just a matter of charity—it’s a matter of national interest and global stability.
 | A guest post by
|