First-ever Ukrainian-born Congresswoman defies expectations, votes AGAINST massive $61 billion Ukraine aid package from Biden administration, saying her heritage won’t force her to support wasteful spending.
At a Glance
- Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-IN), the first Ukrainian-born member of Congress, voted against a $61 billion Ukraine aid package despite her heritage
- Spartz criticized the lack of oversight for Ukraine funding and prioritized U.S. border security concerns
- She’s currently in a challenging reelection campaign for the May 7 GOP primary after previously announcing she wouldn’t seek another term
- Her opponent, state Rep. Chuck Goodrich, has significantly outspent her while emphasizing border security
- Drawing on her Soviet Union upbringing, Spartz warns Americans about a potential socialist future in the U.S.
Ukrainian-Born Congresswoman Puts America First
In a move that surprised many Washington insiders, U.S. Representative Victoria Spartz – the first and only Ukrainian-born member of Congress – stood firmly against President Biden’s massive $61 billion aid package for Ukraine. Despite her personal connections to the war-torn country, Spartz demonstrated remarkable independence by prioritizing American interests over emotional ties to her homeland. Her principled stand reflects a growing sentiment among conservatives that endless foreign aid without proper oversight represents poor stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
“My responsibility is the protection of American people,” says Victoria Spartz.
Spartz’s opposition aligns squarely with conservative House Republicans and her central Indiana constituency, who have grown increasingly frustrated with the Biden administration’s willingness to send billions overseas while America’s own borders remain catastrophically unsecured. The congresswoman has made it clear that her heritage does not obligate her to support funding that she believes could be misused or that comes at the expense of addressing critical domestic priorities.
A Complicated Path to Reelection
Spartz finds herself in a challenging reelection campaign for the May 7 GOP primary in Indiana’s 5th district. In a puzzling political maneuver, she initially announced she wouldn’t seek another term before later reversing that decision. This flip-flop has created additional obstacles in her campaign against state Representative Chuck Goodrich, who has significantly outspent her by pumping personal funds into his campaign coffers.
While Spartz retains the advantage of incumbency, her campaign faces financial challenges compared to her deep-pocketed opponent. Interestingly, President Trump has not endorsed a candidate in this race, despite his significant influence within the Republican party. Trump’s own stance on Ukraine aid has been somewhat ambivalent, though he has consistently emphasized the need to prioritize American interests and border security – positions that align with Spartz’s current campaign messaging.
A Unique Perspective on Freedom
Having immigrated to the United States in 2000, Spartz brings a distinctly valuable perspective to Congress. With a background in banking and education, she entered politics when selected to fill a State Senate term in 2017. Her personal history growing up in the Soviet Union has shaped her political identity and given her firsthand experience with the dangers of unchecked government power and socialist policies – lessons she frequently shares with American voters who have never lived under such systems.
While Spartz has previously described Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a “genocide,” she has simultaneously been willing to criticize Ukraine’s leadership for corruption. This nuanced position demonstrates intellectual honesty rarely seen in today’s politics, where complex international situations are frequently reduced to simplistic good-versus-evil narratives that ignore inconvenient realities like corruption, mismanagement, and the legitimate security concerns of all parties involved.
In her campaign messaging, Spartz focuses on fighting political hypocrisy and warning Americans about the dangers of embracing socialist policies. Her lived experience under Soviet control provides credibility to these warnings that most American politicians simply cannot match. When she speaks about the dangers of government overreach and erosion of individual freedoms, she does so not as an academic exercise but from painful personal and family history.