John Curtis

This article was first published in the On the Hill newsletter. Sign up to receive the newsletter in your inbox on Friday mornings here.

The war in Ukraine has long been a sore subject for Republican lawmakers. While you have some staunch supporters of the U.S. ally, you have others who want to stay out of the foreign conflict.

But the last two weeks have shown just how much of a rift the war is causing among GOP circles, especially when it comes to President Donald Trump’s latest deals with his Russian counterpart, President Vladimir Putin.

It began as an effort to actually ease GOP woes ahead of the midterms. Trump has been searching for ways to bring down high gas prices, and one of his solutions was to broker a deal with Russia to import diesel fuel. That deal, announced on Oct. 9, came as a surprise to many Republicans — especially because it ran counter to the sanctions package passed by Congress and signed by Trump just weeks earlier.

Republican and Democratic members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee sent a letter to Trump urging him to reverse course, raising concerns the deal violates a law passed by Congress and signed by former President Joe Biden in 2022 that “explicitly banned Russian energy imports in 2022.” The lawmakers also cited concerns the deal would boost Russian efforts to overcome Ukraine in the four-year conflict.

Utah Sen. John Curtis was among those who signed on to the letter — and he’s been pretty vocal that he doesn’t believe the United States is doing enough to help Ukraine.

Things got more tense last week when Trump abruptly announced he would be waiving the sanctions targeting Russia altogether. At the time, there wasn’t much explanation. But it got Republicans heated.

Some even went so far as to threaten derailing key agenda items for Trump during the lame-duck legislative period between the midterm elections and the beginning of the next Congress.

“Congress has a lame-duck session. The President has an agenda: supplemental, reconciliation, Ballroom, etc.,” Rep, Don Bacon, who is retiring in January, said in a post on X. “I think the agenda is dead. Many of us won’t fund these things knowing he is propping up a dictator’s invasion and throwing an ally under the bus.”

Others called it a disgrace to former Sen. Lindsey Graham’s legacy, whom the Russian sanctions package was named after following his unexpected death.

“Lindsey would be appalled,” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said in a social media post.

The sanctions waiver even prompted rare pushback from some members who rarely speak out against the president but are locked in tough midterm elections.

“I don’t think we need to be making any more deals with Russia. I’m banned from going to Russia because of the strict stance that I’ve taken. We need to make sure that dictators aren’t allowed to win wars,” Rep. Ashley Hinson, who is running for Senate in Iowa, said this week. “I think the president and I share the goal of lowering costs for working families and for people who are using diesel. I think we share that goal. I just don’t think we need to be making any deals with Russia.”

Those concerns remained elevated even after Trump announced this week that a U.S. hostage would be released from Russian custody, a deal he said could not have been reached without lifting those sanctions.

Shortly after the hostage, Stephen Hubbard, was released, U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff called Putin a “humanitarian” — which set off several Republicans who staunchly disagree with that assessment.

“Vladimir Putin is not our friend, and he is certainly no humanitarian. His relentless attacks on innocent civilians in Ukraine show his total disregard for human life,” retiring Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, said in a social media post. “Appeasement won’t end this war. Pressure will.”

Vice President JD Vance didn’t necessarily endorse the characterization of Putin — but he didn’t tamp it down either.

“I agree with Steve Witkoff saying something nice to a person who just released an American hostage,” Vance told reporters on Wednesday.

But tensions still linger — especially after the slowdown of Starshield, Ukraine’s military-grade security network. It’s powered by Elon Musk’s satellite service, Starlink, and reports from The Wall Street Journal this week said Musk ordered the blackout himself.

The disruptions caused major concerns among Ukrainians, who use the system to protect against drone and missile strikes from Russia.

U.S. officials have been pointing fingers about who exactly is at fault. Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested the decision was solely from Musk, a position echoed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who said it came directly from the company.

Now, some Republicans say they want an investigation into the matter — raising concerns about the role of corporations in national security matters.

“He has decision-making authority over Starlink, the civilian commercial product, but not Starshield, which is a military-grade national security tool,” Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., said of Musk. “No individual civilian should have any decision-making authority over how that’s deployed.”

Fitzpatrick said he will speak to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to ensure anyone who seeks to limit the country’s Starshield usage “will be fully investigated and will be held fully accountable.”

A spokesperson for Curtis told the Deseret News he’d also like answers on what happened with the disruption.

The Wall Street Journal later reported on Thursday that Trump has asked Musk to lift any Starshield restrictions, after which the outlet noted the system “was working more normally.”

“If these reports are true, this is a welcome development. It’s now been over a week since Starshield service in Ukraine was throttled, and innocent Ukrainians have bore the murderous brunt,” Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said in a social media post. “I have full confidence in the powers of the United States Government and SpaceX to solve this, if there are indeed no objections. If there are objections, have the courage to raise your hand, and explain your justification for allowing Putin to continue to mow down toddlers in strollers in Ukrainian parks. Otherwise, let’s get this resolved!”

Developments on this story could be quick — but if they’re not, you can expect to see some congressional action when we get back from recess. Whether that’s calls for investigations or legislative responses, members of both parties are getting up in arms about it.

As we get closer to the midterms, I’m going to bring in some of my colleagues who are closer to the ground on some of these races.

Being in Washington, D.C., gives me a front-row seat to all the governing and legislating — but right now, my colleagues are running all over to get you the latest on the run-up to the election. This week, my colleague Brigham Tomco did a deep dive on the fight for Arizona governor, which has turned into a “Battle of the BYU grads.”

On one end of the valley is U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs: GOP primary voters’ overwhelming pick for governor.

Since 2017, he has represented Gilbert — his home for the past 40 years — as one of the most steadfast adherents to President Donald Trump’s “America First” vision.

On the other end is former Mesa mayor John Giles: Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs’ choice of running mate.

Coming from neighboring metros, Biggs and Giles represent competing campaigns and contrasting responses to the transformation of the Republican Party.

The candidates also reflect the nuanced political identities of one particular religious community that has found itself at the center of Arizona’s fight over statewide power.

A voting bloc that has long punched above its weight, the Latter-day Saint electorate could play a pivotal role in deciding between two of their own at the top of the ticket. While Latter-day Saints make up less than 6% of Arizona’s entire population, they have the most congregations of any denomination in the Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler