President Biden's request for $20 billion in additional funding for Ukraine has teed up the first major test of the anti-interventionist sentiment coursing through the GOP — with real-world implications for Kyiv's existential war.

Why it matters: House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) told Punchbowl News in June that a supplemental aid package for Ukraine is "not going anywhere" in the House, signaling that extra funding would have to come through an appropriations process already plagued by GOP infighting.

What they're saying: "A Republican-led House will not rubber-stamp any blank-check funding requests; rather, the administration's emergency funding requests must be reviewed and scrutinized on their merits consistent with the practice and principles of our majority," a McCarthy spokesperson said in a statement.

Driving the news: Biden's request today paired new Ukraine aid with $12 billion for emergency disaster relief and nearly $4 billion for border and migration-related programs.

• Under the debt ceiling deal negotiated between Biden and McCarthy, the Pentagon's budget cannot exceed $886 billion — a cap that infuriated Republican hawks in the Senate and spurred calls for a supplemental bill.
• A senior House Republican told Axios that a standalone Ukraine bill would be "an absolute disaster" for Republicans, 89 of whom voted to cut $300 million in aid just last month.

By the numbers: A recent CNN poll found 55% of Americans do not believe Congress should authorize more funding for Ukraine, including 71% of Republicans.

• The record levels of skepticism represent a stark shift from the early days of Russia's invasion, when just 7% of Americans believed the U.S. was providing "too much" support to Ukraine, according to Pew.
• Former President Trump has called on Republicans to "refuse to authorize a single additional shipment" of weapons to Ukraine until "the FBI, DOJ and IRS hand over" evidence in the House's Biden family investigation.

The big picture: Ukraine's high-stakes counteroffensive this summer has produced fewer territorial gains than anticipated, darkening the mood in a country that has been under assault for 18 months, the Washington Post reports.

• The use of U.S.-made cluster munitions has fueled recent breakthroughs in Russian lines, however, and the first batch of Abrams tanks are expected to arrive in Ukraine by early fall.
• A senior administration official told reporters that existing funding for Ukraine will last through September, and that the supplemental package will "get us through" the first quarter of 2024 if the war is still ongoing.

The bottom line: A House vote on Ukraine aid would likely pass with the support of Democrats and Republican hawks. Whether it gets to the floor will depend on McCarthy's appetite for a right-wing uprising.

Share this story

Special counsel Jack Smith today proposed a Jan. 2 start date for Trump's trial on election conspiracy charges, estimating that his case would take "no longer than four to six weeks."

Why it matters: Trump's defense team is likely to push for a delay until after the November 2024 election, citing "election interference." The GOP's first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses are scheduled for Jan. 15.

Between the lines: Rejecting the argument that the right to a speedy trial is solely for the benefit of the defendant, prosecutors argued that a Jan. 2 start date would serve "the public's strong interest."

"It is difficult to imagine a public interest stronger than the one in this case, in which the defendant — the former president of the United States — is charged with three criminal conspiracies intended to undermine the federal government, obstruct the certification of the 2020 presidential election, and disenfranchise voters."

The big picture: The proposed date would place Trump in the D.C. courtroom well ahead of his trials on hush money charges in New York (March 25) and classified documents charges in Florida (May 20).

The intrigue: Responding to a Trump attorney's false claim that the Justice Department has been investigating this case for 3½ years, prosecutors revealed in the filing that they first had contact with the former president's lawyers in June 2022.

Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) officially pledged to support the eventual Republican nominee today, the last hurdle to join the Aug. 23 debate stage alongside at least four other candidates.

Why it matters: Trump told Newsmax yesterday he wouldn't sign the pledge, saying he could "name three or four people that I wouldn't support for president."

• Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a fierce Trump critic, has previously said he would sign the pledge but take it "just as seriously as Donald Trump took it in 2016."
• "Pretty good microcosm of this desultory primary," Politico's Jonathan Martin observed, calling it "a meaningless pledge that the runaway frontrunner is blowing off, with zero repercussions."

Some Michigan swing voters aren't very tuned in to Trump's legal woes, and they think there's a reasonable chance he will win the election, Axios' Eugene Scott writes from our latest Engagious/Sago focus groups.

Why it matters: "Several swing voters appear to suffering from 'indictment confusion,'" observed Rich Thau, president of Engagious, who moderated the focus groups.

• "They mistakenly thought [District Attorney] Fani Willis had already indicted [Trump] in Georgia, while they had no clue [special counsel] Jack Smith indicted him again just last week," Thau added.
• Axios sat in on two online focus groups Tuesday night with 13 Michiganders who voted for Trump in 2016 and Biden in 2020.

Between the lines: The public's interest in Trump's legal drama is declining with each subsequent indictment, according to recent data pulled across television, social media and search activity.

• "There's so many," said Brian C.
• "Thought it was about the whole Stormy Daniels scandal where he gave her $185,000 or something and falsified documents," Dixie T. said regarding her understanding of the latest indictment.

Keep reading

Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful responses to our request for GOP debate questions in last night's Sneak.

Five of the best:

• Would you pardon Trump if he's convicted? — Barbara B.
• Did Pence do the right thing counting Biden's electoral votes on Jan. 6? — Mike K.
• Do you believe in human-caused climate change, and what would you do to address it? — Barry S.
• Do you support an ethics code of conduct for Supreme Court justices? Why or why not? — Carl R.
• What would you do to restore consensus with Democrats and erode today's intense partisanship? — Abner S.