Republican and Democratic senators who have collaborated closely with Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina are deeply frustrated by his recent decision to oppose a $95 billion defense and foreign aid package. This bill, deemed crucial by its architects, was dependent on Graham’s support to rally a majority of Republican senators and exert pressure on Speaker Mike Johnson to bring it to the House floor.
However, Graham’s unexpected vote against the bill resulted in a shortfall of support, despite 22 GOP senators voting in favor. Consequently, the bill’s passage in the House is now uncertain.
Many senators who had counted on Graham’s support feel betrayed, particularly given his previous statements championing aid for Ukraine. Some speculate that Graham’s reversal was motivated by a desire to align himself with former President Trump, who actively lobbied against the package to undermine President Biden.
One Democratic senator, involved in the bill’s strategy, expressed disappointment, highlighting Graham’s pivotal role in securing Republican support. However, Graham’s shift in allegiance, perceived as prioritizing his political survival in South Carolina and appeasing Trump, has left his colleagues baffled and dismayed.
Graham’s recent actions contradict his past advocacy for Ukraine and Taiwan, including his passionate speeches on the Senate floor condemning Russian aggression and advocating for military support to Ukraine. His opposition to a bill containing significant funding for Ukraine, coupled with his focus on border security concerns, has left fellow senators perplexed.
Despite Graham’s explanations for his stance, which he attributes to prioritizing border security, some senators find his rationale unconvincing. They expected Graham, given his extensive experience in immigration policy, to appreciate the progress made in addressing asylum claims in the bipartisan negotiations.
Moreover, Graham’s position as the top Republican on the State, Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee adds to the perplexity surrounding his opposition to a bill he would typically support.
Graham’s decision to withdraw from a bipartisan Senate delegation to a NATO gathering in favor of visiting the Texas border further underscores the rift between him and his colleagues on foreign policy priorities. While Graham emphasizes the importance of addressing border issues, critics argue that his actions undermine crucial diplomatic efforts.
Senator Susan Collins, while diplomatic in her response, admits surprise at Graham’s vote, reflecting the broader sentiment among senators who had expected Graham’s steadfast support for critical foreign aid initiatives.
In light of Graham’s evolving positions and alliances, senators on both sides of the aisle are left questioning his motives and consistency, expressing concern about his departure from his traditionally stalwart positions on national defense and foreign affairs.