President Donald Trump’s announcement that he had reversed course on the U.S. bombing campaign against Houthi targets in Yemen was met with initial confusion and skepticism on Capitol Hill. 

Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday that he had called off the operation after the terrorist group told his administration this week that “they don’t want to fight anymore.” 

The deal, which the president described as a handshake agreement rather than a formal treaty, did not include a guarantee that the Houthis would stop striking Israel, despite the group having claimed responsibility for airstrikes on Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv days last weekend. The group instead said on Tuesday that, while it may stop attacking U.S. ships, it will “definitely continue our operations in support to Gaza.” 

Steve Witkoff, the president’s Middle East envoy and his chief negotiator on foreign conflicts, negotiated the deal, according to a source familiar.

Israeli officials were reportedly not informed that the U.S. was in talks with the Houthis or about the deal before Trump announced it, nor were the president’s GOP allies in Congress, many of whom expressed skepticism that the Houthis could be trusted to honor any agreements.

Pressed by reporters in the Oval Office later Tuesday about how Israel’s security was affected by the deal, Trump replied that the issue was not a term of this agreement. “No, I don’t know about that frankly, but I know one thing: they [the Houthis] want nothing to do with us, and they’ve let that be known through all of their surrogates and very strongly,” Trump said.

“Well, I’ll discuss that if something happens, if something happens with Israel and the Houthis,” he later replied. 

“I think it’d be great to have a ceasefire deal with the Houthis. Unfortunately, I don’t see how the Houthis are going to stop. And the [one] that really needs to stop is Iran,” Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) told Jewish Insider. “The’re the ones that are the problem. We’ve got to hold Iran accountable. This is not going to stop until Iran is held accountable, either by the United States, by Israel, somebody.”

Scott said that Iran, the Houthis, Hamas, Hezbollah, China and Russia have all shown that they won’t abide by the deals they make. “I’m a business guy. I wouldn’t do a deal with somebody that I couldn’t trust,” Scott continued.

“Clearly, that’s a problem,” Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) said of the deal excluding terms ensuring the Houthis would stop firing at Israel. “The initial statement was they’ve got to stop firing at American ships. As much as I know is what’s actually printed. But clearly, they shouldn’t be able to shoot at us, our allies or any of the shipping in the area.”

Several other Senate Republicans said they hadn’t heard about the deal until asked about it by JI, with some appearing bewildered by the news of the agreement itself and Israel’s exclusion from the terms. Once briefed on the news, several senators expressed openness to the idea, while maintaining their support for Israel responding to any aggression from the terrorist organization. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said he welcomed the news of a deal to bring an end to the Houthi attacks on U.S. targets, but noted that Israel would need to respond accordingly if the Houthis continued to launch strikes toward the Jewish state.

“I think this is a step in the right direction. I appreciate it. I’m hopeful Iran understands that Iran and the Houthis are the same in our eyes. As to Israel, they don’t need to take any more of this shit from the Houthis or Iran. I am supportive of the diplomatic solution. I’m supportive of [Iran] dismantling completely with a 123 agreement for peaceful nuclear power. That combination works for me, if it’s real,” Graham said.

“President Trump is clearly putting pressure on the Houthis and having Iran put pressure on the Houthis. If I were Iran, I would put pressure on the Houthis not to attack Israel, because if they keep attacking Israel, all bets are off,” he continued, noting that the Houthis striking Israel was “not in our interest” from a national security standpoint.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) told JI that he is “interested to see what the plain text of the agreement holds.”

“I know that the first priority was to say, you better leave our forces alone. That should be the first priority. The second priority after U.S. troop protection is protecting Israel, and frankly, I think the Houthis should be run out of Yemen,” Tillis said. 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) praised Trump’s military campaign against the Houthis in a statement to JI, noting the terrorist group’s longstanding commitment to destroying Western civilization. 

“The Houthis are a genocidal Iran-backed terror organization whose slogan includes ‘Death to America, Death to Israel.’ Their attacks on us, our allies, and on freedom of navigation endanger core American national security interest. President Trump was correct to respond to their aggression with military force, and I hope that campaign has coerced them into stopping those attacks,” Cruz said. 

Senate Democrats largely criticized the president’s handling of the announcement, though some voiced concern about how Israel’s security would be impacted by the news.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said that “the attacks on Israel need to stop. Period, end of sentence.”

“An attack on Israel should be regarded as intolerable. The Houthis are an arm of Iran, which is a common enemy for both Israel and the United States if they develop nuclear weapons,” Blumenthal continued. “I believe that we have a common cause against the Houthis, which are attacking our commerce in the Red Sea, and I think attacks on Israel need to be stopped through deterrence or otherwise.”

Sens. Chris Coons (D-DE) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) both criticized the chaotic nature of the surprise announcement, noting the initial confusion over whether the Houthis had in fact agreed to the deal. (That confusion was the result of opposing statements from some Houthi officials reacting to Trump’s announcement, with the group’s leaders initially vowing publicly to evaluate the proposal.)

“I just obviously don’t believe anything he says,” Murphy said of the president. “You can’t have a diplomatic agreement when only one party has agreed.”

“It’s also called Tuesday, when our president announces something that the counterparty promptly announces is not, in fact, happening, whether it’s a trade deal or negotiation,” Coons said of the situation prior to the Houthis ultimately agreeing to the deal shortly after Trump’s announcement of it. 

Dan Caldwell, a former senior Defense Department official fired from the administration over alleged leaks who was seen as a leader of the isolationist camp inside the Pentagon, celebrated the deal, saying on X that Trump “wisely ended the bombing — rejecting pressure to expand the scope of the operation, which would have risked another forever war in the Middle East” when the Houthis agreed to stop shooting at U.S. ships.

Jonathan Schanzer, the executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told JI that whether the deal allows continued attacks on Israel or other targets in the region is the key question that must be answered before the agreement can be fully analyzed.

“Freedom of navigation in the Red Sea is important. An end to attempted strikes on American vessels is also important,” Schanzer said. “But if the U.S. has allowed for — at least tacitly allowed for — the continuation of rockets [on Israel], we will certainly not see the end of the turmoil in the Middle East.”

He said that decreased Houthi attacks on targets in the Red Sea might not necessarily lead to an uptick in attacks against Israel, noting that the ballistic missiles often used to target Israel are different weapons than those the Houthis have frequently used in the Red Sea.

But, he continued, if U.S. strikes drop off, it could give the Houthis more ability and opportunities to maneuver weapons in the open to launch sites. 

Schanzer said the Israelis have proven their ability to hit the Houthis in Yemen in force, as they have in recent days, and said that Israeli attacks can likely continue as long as Israel continues to receive targeting intelligence.

“It’s not convenient to have to fly all the way to Yemen in order to carry out these strikes. But they are certainly able to do it,” Schanzer said. He speculated that if Israel does continue attacks on the Houthis in Yemen long-term, Israel may need to consider setting up temporary operating bases in the Horn of Africa.

He added that the bombing runs to Yemen are of a similar length to the ones that Israel would have to take to hit targets inside Iran, giving Israel “practice.”

Schanzer said that the ultimate implications of the deal will hinge on what was included, but said that “I think there will be fears right now in Israel that the missile attacks on Israel were left out, and that could be a sign of things to come” in the U.S. deal with Iran currently under negotiation.

Dan Shapiro, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council who served as a senior Defense and State Department official in the Biden administration and a U.S. ambassador to Israel in the Obama administration, said on X that the details of the deal are critical.

“No attacks on US ships is good news,” Shapiro said. “But the win is modest if attacks on others’ ships or on Israel continue. A terror org launching missiles around the region (incl to Israel’s airport) can’t continue.” He said that Israeli strikes may need to continue.

He also called it “very concerning” that Israel was reportedly not informed in advance about the talks or the deal. “That’s not the transparency we should practice when dealing with an ally about a common foe. Iran nuclear talks should not be conducted that way.”

Schanzer said that he’s skeptical of claims of success from Oman, which negotiated the deal, given that Oman hosts the Houthis’ headquarters through which he said Iran has provided cash and intelligence. “In many ways, the Omanis are acting like the Qataris playing both arsonist and firefighter,” Schanzer said.