The image was everywhere in late September 2024. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, dressed in his trademark olive drab, standing inside a cavernous ammunition plant in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Next to him was Governor Josh Shapiro, a man whose name was on every shortlist for the Democratic ticket just weeks prior. They were signing artillery shells. It looked like a standard diplomatic thank-you tour, but in the hyper-charged atmosphere of an American election year, it ignited a firestorm.
So, did Zelensky campaign for Harris, or was he just doing his job?
The answer isn't a simple yes or no. It depends entirely on whether you’re looking at the official diplomatic itinerary or the optics of a swing-state visit occurring weeks before voters headed to the polls. To understand why this became such a massive controversy, we have to look at the specific events of that week in September.
The Scranton Visit: Optics vs. Official Business
Zelensky arrived at the Scranton Army Ammunition Plant on September 22, 2024. For Ukraine, this factory is a lifeline. It produces the 155mm artillery shells that are basically the heartbeat of their defense against Russia. Zelensky wanted to say thank you to the workers. That’s the official line from the White House and the Ukrainian embassy.
But the "where" and "who" mattered just as much as the "why."
📖 Related: Whos Winning The Election Rn Polls: The January 2026 Reality Check
Scranton is Joe Biden’s hometown. Pennsylvania was the ultimate "must-win" state for Kamala Harris. And Zelensky wasn't alone; he was flanked by Shapiro, Senator Bob Casey, and Representative Matt Cartwright—all high-profile Democrats. Not a single Republican official was in the photo op.
Why Republicans Saw Red
The GOP backlash was instant and furious. House Speaker Mike Johnson didn't mince words, calling the visit a "partisan campaign event." He went so far as to demand that Zelensky fire Ukraine’s Ambassador to the U.S., Oksana Markarova, claiming she organized the trip specifically to help Democrats in a battleground state.
- The Aircraft: Zelensky traveled on a U.S. C-17 military transport plane.
- The Timing: The visit happened just as the Harris campaign was leaning heavily into the "defending democracy" narrative.
- The Location: Lackawanna County is a critical area for anyone trying to win the Pennsylvania suburbs.
Honestly, the optics were tough to defend if you were trying to maintain a "neutral" stance. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer even launched an investigation into whether the Biden-Harris administration used taxpayer-funded resources—specifically that C-17—to facilitate election interference.
The New Yorker Interview: Fuel on the Fire
If the Scranton trip was a spark, Zelensky’s interview with The New Yorker, published the same week, was a bucket of gasoline. In it, he was uncharacteristically blunt about the Republican ticket.
👉 See also: Who Has Trump Pardoned So Far: What Really Happened with the 47th President's List
He called JD Vance "too radical" and suggested that Donald Trump "doesn't really know how to stop the war." For a foreign leader who depends on bipartisan support for billions in aid, this was a massive gamble.
Trump didn't take it lying down. At a rally in North Carolina shortly after, he mocked Zelensky, calling him the "greatest salesman on Earth" and accusing him of making "little nasty aspersions" toward him. It felt like the relationship between the Ukrainian leadership and the GOP had hit an all-time low.
Did He Actually Endorse Anyone?
Technically, no. Zelensky never stood on a stage and said, "Vote for Kamala Harris." He has always maintained that Ukraine will work with whoever the American people elect.
However, the Harris campaign definitely used the vibe of the visit. Harris herself met with Zelensky at the White House later that week, drawing a sharp contrast between her "unwavering support" and Trump’s desire for a "quick deal" to end the war. To many voters in Pennsylvania—especially the state's 750,000 Polish-Americans who worry about Russian expansion—the message was clear even without a formal endorsement.
✨ Don't miss: Why the 2013 Moore Oklahoma Tornado Changed Everything We Knew About Survival
The Contrast in Strategies
- The Harris Approach: Emphasized the Scranton visit as a symbol of American manufacturing and the "arsenal of democracy."
- The Trump/Vance Approach: Framed the visit as a "misuse of funds" and evidence that Zelensky was essentially a Democratic surrogate.
What Most People Get Wrong About the "Interference"
People often forget that foreign leaders visit U.S. factories and states all the time. It’s part of the job. But doing it in a swing state, with only one party present, in the final 50 days of an election? That’s where the "normal" diplomacy ends and the "campaigning" accusations begin.
The Pentagon defended the trip as "official business," noting that the U.S. military frequently transports foreign heads of state for security reasons. But in the world of political perception, the "official" explanation rarely beats the "campaign" narrative.
Actionable Insights: What This Means for the Future
The fallout from the September 2024 visit changed how foreign leaders approach the U.S. during election cycles. If you're following international relations or U.S. defense policy, here's what you should keep in mind:
- Bipartisanship is Fragile: The Scranton incident showed how easily a foreign policy issue (Ukraine aid) can become a "wedge issue" in domestic politics.
- State-Level Diplomacy Matters: Watch how foreign leaders interact with governors like Shapiro. These "sub-national" relationships are becoming key to securing long-term defense contracts.
- Optics Trump Policy: Even if a trip is 100% about ammunition production, the absence of one party in the room will always be interpreted as a political snub.
Ultimately, while Zelensky didn't "campaign" in the sense of knocking on doors or running TV ads, his presence in Pennsylvania provided the Harris campaign with a powerful, live-action visual of their foreign policy in action. Whether that was intentional or just a massive diplomatic oversight depends on which side of the aisle you're sitting on.
To dig deeper into the actual outcomes of these meetings, look at the $8 billion aid package announced by the Biden-Harris administration that same week—it remains the most concrete result of that controversial tour.