Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Does the foreign aid package include millions of dollars for pensions in Ukraine?

Man waving U.S. and Ukrainian flags

A man supporting Ukraine funding demonstrates outside the U.S. Capitol before the House passed the foreign aid package on April 20

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

This fact brief was originally published by Wisconsin Watch. Read the original here. Fact briefs are published by newsrooms in the Gigafact network, and republished by The Fulcrum. Visit Gigafact to learn more.

Does the April 2024 U.S. foreign aid package include millions of dollars for pensions in Ukraine?

No.

The $95 billion U.S. aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan prohibits funds from being allocated to pensions in Ukraine.


President Joe Biden signed the package into law April 24, 2024.

Ukraine gets $61 billion for its war with Russia, including $14 billion for buying weapons.

Also included is $8 billion in economic support that “may include budget support,” none of which “may be made available for the reimbursement of pensions.”

Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, who represents most of northern Wisconsin, said on Wisconsin talk radio that the law includes “millions” for pensions in Ukraine.

His office, pointing to a U.S. State Department news release, told Wisconsin Watch that Tiffany meant to say that previous U.S. aid packages funded Ukrainian pensions.

A top Ukrainian official warned in December that Ukraine might have to stop making pension payments if foreign assistance wasn’t provided soon.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

US Congress Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and for other purposes.

omny.fm Guest: Congressman Tom Tiffany - The Meg Ellefson Show 042524 - The Meg Ellefson Show

U.S. State Department The United States Funds Economic Survey of Ukraine for Sustainable Recovery

Financial Times Ukraine warns of pension and salary delays without western aid


Read More

A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of a person standing on a giant robotic hand.

As AI transforms the labor market, the U.S. faces a familiar challenge: preparing workers for new skills. A look at a 1991 Labor Department report reveals striking parallels.

Getty Images, Andriy Onufriyenko

We’ve Been "Preparing" for the Future Since 1991—It Hasn't Worked

“Today, the demands on business and workers are different. Firms must meet world-class standards, and so must workers. Employers seek adaptability and the ability to learn and work in teams.”

Sound familiar?

Keep ReadingShow less
News control room
Not news to many: Our polarized view of news brands is only intensifying
Not news to many: Our polarized view of news brands is only intensifying

Non‑Partisan Doesn’t Mean Unbiased: Why America Keeps Getting This Wrong

For as long as I’ve worked in democracy reform, I’ve watched people use non‑partisan and non‑biased as if they meant the same thing. They don’t. This confusion has distorted how Americans judge the credibility of the democracy reform movement, journalists, and even one another. We have created an impossible expectation that anyone who claims to be non‑partisan must also be free of bias.

Non‑partisanship, at its core, is not taking sides in political debates or endorsing a party, candidate, or ideology. It creates space for fair, balanced dialogue accessible to multiple perspectives. Nonpartisan environments encourage discussion and explanation of various viewpoints.

Keep ReadingShow less