The Russian invasion of Ukraine has been the top foreign policy crisis facing the U.S. over the past two years. Bill Huizenga’s response to this crisis shows he is an unreliable representative. Huizenga has waffled, shifted and most lately fallen in line behind those who promote Russian propaganda in his party. His erratic response to this crisis makes it very unpredictable how he will respond to future crises.

Since World War II, the U.S. and the world have prospered. A key element of U.S. foreign policy during this period has been to prevent a hostile power to dominate either Europe or Asia.

With their invasion of Ukraine and threats to use nuclear weapons, Russia is aggressively trying to assert itself in Europe. China has been radically increasing its military strength over the past 20 years. Their goal is to take over Taiwan. If they were to invade Taiwan, the global economic consequences would be immediate and massive. A war between the U.S. and China could easily follow. To withstand the long-term threats posed by Russia and China, the U.S. will need to commit to long-term deterrence to present and future aggression — no matter who is president or controls Congress.

How is the Republican Party and Bill Huizenga reacting to this? The Republican Party has had a unified, hawkish foreign policy throughout my life — until now. The classic example of this was Ronald Reagan in the 1980s with his demand to the Russian leader: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

The Republican Party today is very much split on the Russian threat. MAGA zealots like Marjorie Taylor Greene (Georgia) and Matt Gaetz (Florida) praise what they perceive as Russian traditional values and they echo Putin’s “anti-woke” diatribes. They are hostile to anything that Putin is hostile to, with the prime example being Ukraine.

This shift by some Republicans has set off alarm bells for those Republicans who continue to view Russia as a significant threat. Mike McCaul (Texas) the Republican Chair of the House Intelligence Committee recently said: “We see pro-Russia messages being uttered on the House floor.” Mike Pence has warned other Republicans to stop being apologists for Putin. Mitt Romney recently said this about pro-Russia comments by fellow Republicans: “It’s almost treasonous and it just makes me ill to see some of them say that.”

The Republican leaders on both sides of this issue are all very strong on our border security. Border security can and should be focused on. Doing so in no way means that we cannot help our friends stand up to aggression.

Following months of acrimonious debate, the House passed a $61 billion Ukraine military aid bill on April 20.

What has Bill Huizenga said about the Russian invasion? How did he vote April 20?

When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Huizenga positioned himself as anti-Russia/ pro-Ukraine. Huizenga has since done a complete reversal from this position and he has now aligned himself with the anti-Ukraine faction led by Greene and Gaetz. Huizenga voted against the $61 billion Ukraine aid package.

Let’s trace Huizenga’s evolution. In early March 2022 Huizenga posted this note in the “Huizenga Huddle”: “Last week, Vladimir Putin and the Russian Army invaded our ally Ukraine. This is the largest incursion into Europe since World War II. We cannot allow this aggression to stand. … While seeing the Germans, Dutch, British and other European allies actively engage in support of Ukraine is welcomed, America cannot lead from behind. … Ukraine may be only the beginning of Russia’s aggression. … The U.S. must provide material support to our Ukrainian friends as they fight for freedom. … Lastly we had a Ukrainian student who attended GVSU and intern with my office. We believe she is back in Ukraine. Thankfully she posted on social media yesterday. I ask that you keep her and her fellow Ukrainians in your prayers during these tragic times.”

Shortly after the Ukraine aid bill passed April 20, Huizenga explained his negative vote on Twitter/X: “Regarding the Ukraine supplemental, I could not support this legislation because of the overall pricetag of $61B and that it funded programs well beyond just military assistance. This is why I voted for the Cammack amendment, which would have limited aid to military assistance. … We must question whether American taxpayers should be paying the salaries of Ukrainian bureaucrats. Unfortunately, this amendment failed, which is why I could not support this supplemental.”

How is it possible that the same person could have written these two statements? The Huizenga of 2024 no longer talks about Russian aggression, “our ally Ukraine,” the need for America to lead, nor are there any heart-rending stories about or prayers for Ukrainians. In fact, the only mention of Ukrainians is his snide reference to “bureaucrats.” This is after two years of the Ukrainians valiantly holding off the much larger army of the Russian invaders.

The Huizenga of 2022 was a passionate defender of “our ally” Ukraine. The Huizenga of 2024 talks like he could care less if the valiant Ukrainian defenders run out of ammo and are overrun by the Russian war criminals.

In trying to bridge from where the Huizenga of 2022 was to where the Huizenga of 2024 is, the Huizenga of 2024 hides behind “the Cammack amendment.” What was this amendment? The Cammack amendment did cut $10 billion non-military from the $61 billion bill. The non-military aid does help fund the Ukrainian government. Their economy, which funded their government, has been shattered by the invasion.

Here is how Kat Cammack (Florida) described on Twitter her amendment: “I have not supported any Ukraine funding during my time in Congress including today. It was well established that I would never support the $61 billion aid package regardless of whether my amendment was adopted or not.”

The Cammack amendment was put forward by someone opposed to any aid to Ukraine and was nothing more than a fig leaf to provide cover for politicians like the Huizenga of 2024 who are now afraid to oppose the Greene/Gaetz anti-Ukraine caucus. It was primarily supported by Republicans who knew it was never going to pass.

For those of us who remain concerned about the aggression of Russia and China, it was critical that the $61 billion aid bill pass. The Huizenga of 2024 has shifted sides in the Foreign Policy Civil War within the Republican Party. I very much believe that he has chosen the wrong side of this GOP Civil War.

Some people are leaders and many people are followers. Both sides of the Republican foreign policy war have leaders. Mike McCaul is a leader of the anti-Russia group in the House. He voted for the aid package.

Mike Johnson is also a leader. He allowed the aid package to be voted on. Even though I view them as errant, Greene and Gaetz are also leaders. They led the fight against the aid package.

Sentinel Leach is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Our representative is not a leader. Sometime between February 2022 and now, he stuck his finger in the air and noticed that the winds were shifting. The anti-Ukraine base in his party was growing. Russian propaganda was having an impact. He became a follower of Greene and Gaetz.

The Huizenga of 2024 has buried his earnest words from two years ago about the Russian threat and the importance of Ukraine. Our district needs a leader whose stated earnest beliefs can be counted on to last more than a couple of years. We need a leader who understands what are the major threats to our national security and will respond to them.

Bill Huizenga has clearly shown that he is not the leader we need.

— John Donnelly is a resident of Holland.