It seems the drama is not entirely over for the recent letter signed by 30 House progressives suggesting Biden condition future aid to Ukraine on negotiations with Russia (despite Russia being the sole aggressor in the ongoing conflict) and recommending sanctions relief for Russia. This letter, which paralleled many of Republican leader McCarthy's recent talking points, severely embarrassed the Biden administration, and caused Pelosi to take the exceptional step of declaring the Democratic caucus would never even entertain its contents, was recently withdrawn by the progressive caucus.
In her statement withdrawing the letter, Representative Jayapal claimed that the letter was drafted in July and was released erroneously by staff prior to vetting. Observers were quick to question this statement, noting that the letter made references to events that had yet to occur in July such as the illegal annexation of new Ukrainian territories by Russia and that Jayapal herself had made a statement attempting to 'clarify' rather than repudiate the contents of the letter just the prior day.
Now it appears that some staff, unhappy about being blamed entirely for the misstep, have come forward to refute part of Jayapal's statement. Politico reports that people involved in the matter say that Representative Jayapal personally approved the release of the letter. It appears now that some signatories were not informed of its impending release while others, not exclusively staff, were actively involved in the process.
This is not the first time the progressive caucus has had trouble with their position on Ukraine. In March, progressives were some of only 17 members of the House who voted to keep importing Russian oil into the US after the invasion of Ukraine (the others were ultra-MAGA Republicans such as Marjorie Taylor Green). They have never produced a satisfactory reasoning for this vote as Russian oil was a very small fraction of the US's energy supply even prior to the import ban.
All of this comes as caucus leader Jayapal considers running for a leadership position in the Democratic party. If her inability to coordinate with even a very small cohort within her caucus or retain the loyalty of her staff are any indication, Democrats would be unwise to let her anywhere near an official leadership position within the party.