Bill Overview
Title: SUPPORT Act
Description: This bill states that it is U.S. policy to take necessary and appropriate steps to support Ukraine's efforts to reassert control of its territory and defend its sovereignty in the event of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, including by providing lethal and nonlethal assistance and sharing intelligence. The bill also requires the Department of Defense to report to Congress a plan for providing such support to a Ukrainian insurgency. The National Intelligence Council must produce an intelligence community assessment relating to Russia's gray zone activities and assets. (Under this bill, a gray zone activity is an activity to advance a foreign state's interests that (1) falls between ordinary statecraft and open warfare, (2) is designed to maximize the advancement of such interests without provoking a U.S. kinetic military response, and (3) falls on a spectrum ranging from covert adversary operations to open adversary operations.
Sponsors: Rep. Krishnamoorthi, Raja [D-IL-8]
Target Audience
Population: People in Ukraine potentially impacted by increased U.S. support against Russian threats
Estimated Size: 15000
- The bill focuses on U.S. support for Ukraine, signifying the primary population impacted will be Ukrainians, especially those involved directly or indirectly in military or defense against Russian threats.
- The SUPPORT Act's provisions for lethal and non-lethal assistance suggest a focus on Ukraine's military personnel and security forces.
- The policy also affects U.S. military personnel who may be involved in support operations, planning, or intelligence sharing related to Ukraine.
- Citizens in Ukraine living in areas of potential conflict or requiring security and stability support will be impacted either directly or indirectly.
- Families of U.S. military personnel who could be deployed or tasked with support roles regarding Ukraine would have indirect impacts as well.
Reasoning
- The SUPPORT Act aims primarily at supporting Ukraine, and its direct impact on U.S. residents may be indirect, primarily felt by those in military and defense sectors.
- Considering the policy's budget restrictions, its economic impact on the broader U.S. population may be minimal, but specific actors (military personnel, defense contractors) may experience operational changes.
- The bill may result in increased workload or deployment for U.S. military personnel, potentially affecting their wellbeing and their families'. However, this population is relatively small (around 15,000 directly impacted individuals).
- For civilians in defense and intelligence roles, the policy could lead to increased job security and shifts in workload focus, but overall wellbeing changes might be subtle due to the policy's indirect nature in domestic life.
- Including a range of views is crucial as not all perceive the policy's objectives and implications similarly – some may view it positively from a geopolitical stance, others may concern due to potential military engagement.
Simulated Interviews
U.S. Army Officer (Texas)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Supporting Ukraine is crucial for global security, but it does mean potential redeployment for me.
- My family is anxious about the idea of me going back overseas, but we understand the necessity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Intelligence Analyst (Virginia)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy directly impacts my workload as we will have more intelligence operations regarding Russia and Ukraine.
- There are concerns about Russia's response, but increased monitoring is necessary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Defense Contractor (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is beneficial for business as it means more contracts and job security.
- The ethical implications of supplying arms are complex, but necessary for regional stability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Congressional Staffer (Washington D.C.)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The SUPPORT Act aligns with U.S. strategic interests, but it pushes us to re-evaluate domestic budget allocations.
- There's apprehension about geopolitical risks, but support is seen as necessary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired Military (Georgia)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm supportive of assisting Ukraine, having seen the stakes firsthand.
- Concerned about veterans' care being deprioritized due to funding redirection.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Stay-at-home Mom (Illinois)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We worry about my husband's chances of being deployed again due to increasing tensions.
- We are aware of the importance, but family stability is a priority.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Defense Industry Journalist (New York)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The SUPPORT Act indicates a shift in U.S. defense policy back to conventional support methods.
- While this policy is exciting for coverage, it presents geopolitical tension challenges.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Small Business Owner (Florida)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The SUPPORT Act could drive more demand for military goods.
- I worry more about the local economy than international politics.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
University Professor (Colorado)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will become a key talking point in my courses and publications.
- I support the focus on gray zone activities; it's crucial for academic discourse.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Peace Activist (Washington D.C.)
Age: 26 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the SUPPORT Act could lead to unnecessary military involvement.
- We should focus on diplomatic solutions rather than escalating military presence.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $650000000)
Year 2: $500000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $650000000)
Year 3: $500000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $650000000)
Year 5: $500000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $650000000)
Year 10: $500000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $650000000)
Year 100: $500000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $650000000)
Key Considerations
- Potential geopolitical ramifications, including response from Russia and allied nations.
- The effectiveness of support in achieving intended military and strategic objectives is uncertain.
- Potential impact on domestic public opinion and political support for international engagement.