Republicans are publicly lauding President Donald Trump’s ceasefire between Israel and Iran as an example of his “peace through strength” approach to foreign policy.

Trump announced that Israel and Iran had agreed to a “complete and total ceasefire” that will bring an end to the war. “This is a war that could have gone on for years, and destroyed the entire Middle East, but it didn’t, and never will,” the president wrote on his Truth Social platform, alluding to criticism that he was dragging the U.S. into another prolonged Middle East conflict. 

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) told reporters on Monday evening that the news of a ceasefire was “incredible,” saying, “This is what peace through strength looks like.”

“This is what real leadership yields, and we’re certainly grateful for the decisive leadership of President Trump,” Johnson said, adding that he would expect “that Iran will bring an end to their nuclear enrichment program and that there will be a lasting peace in the Middle East.”

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) told Jewish Insider that he’s “very much pleased” by the news. 

Pressed on whether he’s concerned that the deal could give Iran breathing room to rebuild its nuclear program, Kennedy said, “There’s this rule when you practice law, when you’ve won for the judge, you shut up. OK? You don’t keep talking. It’s a ceasefire. We won. We ought to take our victory.”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) said he viewed the ceasefire as a “very good development.”

“I think the question now is how do we get to a place where we can get to a deterrence posture, a containment posture for Iran for the long haul, that will keep them in their box, keep Iran in their box, but will also allow us, the United States, to draw down our troop and military presence in the region,” Hawley told reporters. 

Asked about his initial concerns about the potential consequences of an offensive strike on Iran’s nuclear program, Hawley replied, “If he can get a ceasefire out of it, listen, I support the president and want him to succeed, so this is good progress.”

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) praised the president for having the discipline to execute the mission of degrading Iran’s nuclear program without pulling the U.S. into a broader war.

“There are a lot of voices out there, here in permanent Washington, that wanted more engagement [in the conflict]. And President Trump, I think he had that restraint and that instinct to do what needed to be done to bring about peace,” Schmitt said during a Fox News appearance.

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) wrote on X that the president “accomplished peace through strength” with the announcement of a deal. “If this ceasefire is upheld by both Iran and Israel, it will bring a successful conclusion to this 12 Day War and a major victory for President Trump. This demonstrates how critical it is to have a state of the art and well-funded military, as well as a President who recognizes the art of the deal,” Rounds wrote. 

Sen. Jim Banks (R-IN) wrote in a lengthy thread on X that, “President Trump has long understood that the American people never supported ‘forever wars’ with unclear goals and no clear metrics for success. But at the same time, President Trump understands that when it comes to setting a red line, he will actually follow through and enforce it, sending a clear message that our enemies in Beijing and elsewhere should heed.”

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH) praised Trump for carrying out this weekend’s operation without embroiling the U.S. in a deeper conflict. 

“President Trump has always been clear: the era of Forever Wars abroad is over. He was able to DECIMATE the Iranian nuclear program without boots on the ground, any dead Americans or a new regime change war. He’s 100% right that it’s time to push for peace,” Moreno posted on X.

Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL) described the deal as “historic” and hailed Trump as “The President of Peace!”

“President Trump’s restoring peace through strength. It’s good for America and for the world. Let’s continue to pray for the president, our service members and for a lasting peace,” Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) wrote on X. 

“Our great nation and the world is a better and safer place because of President Trump’s bold leadership. … He took decisive action to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program to bring peace,” Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), a member of House leadership, said in a statement. “President Trump told our allies and adversaries we would always put America First and achieve peace through strength.”

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), one of the few congressional Democrats who supported the strikes, suggested that the ceasefire puts to rest fears that many had expressed about a protracted war in the Middle East.

“Now there’s a ceasefire … so the fear of an un-ending war apparently is not there, in part I think because Iran thinks we’re serious,” Hoyer continued. “I’ve always hoped that we were prepared to follow up on our rhetoric that [a nuclear Iran] was an unacceptable alternative, which I think Trump has done.”

Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL), a co-chair of the House Jewish Caucus, said on X that he hoped “this announced ceasefire truly brings an end to the war. A diplomatic path to reversing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and permanently dismantling Iran’s nuclear development programs is preferable to war.”

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), the other Jewish Caucus co-chair, said he welcomed “the news of a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. The violence has cost too many innocent lives and inflicted too much destruction on innocent civilians” and that he hoped the deal would put the region on a path to a durable peace.

Other national security-focused House Democrats highlighted the risks of Trump’s actions if they did not successfully eliminate Iran’s nuclear program.

“If you take this shot, you have to land it, and it’s a very hard shot to land,” Rep. Pat Ryan (D-NY) told JI when news of the ceasefire emerged, arguing that the situation highlighted the need for Congress to assert a role in war-making authorities.

“Taking the shot and not landing it is incredibly dangerous and risky because now the risk to break out — there’s no reason for them to hold back, whereas before we at least had some sense that there was an effective deterrent,” Ryan continued. “They have every reason to race to break out now.”

Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, emphasized that the success of the strikes is very uncertain at this point, and that he would be “most worried about an Iran that goes silent right now.”

“If Iran goes silent right now, what are they doing? Are they actually developing something?

Dana Stroul, the research director for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East, told JI that declaring a ceasefire before the full impact of U.S. strikes over the weekend had been determined could be risky.

“The major risk of declaring the ceasefire now without verifying the damage to Iranian capabilities is that it leaves intact enough of the program or the stockpile of enriched uranium — secure within Iran — providing the regime a path to rebuild at some point in the future,” Stroul said.

“After staking U.S. credibility on eliminating Iran’s nuclear program, hopefully President Trump can explain to the international community and Israel that a ceasefire at this time opens the door to urgent diplomacy that ends Iran’s threats and sets the region on a more stable trajectory,” Stroul continued. “What we don’t know right now is what kind of regime we face on the other side of Israeli and American military strikes. Is the regime ready to make the necessary concessions?”

Trump’s announcement of a deal came hours after Iran’s missile attack on U.S. bases in Qatar and Iraq. Despite their later praise for the ceasefire, the Iranian attack initially prompted some Republicans to call for an aggressive American response, while others in the party argued that they should be viewed as a sign of Tehran’s willingness to avoid escalating the conflict. 

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he was of the view that the attack was a sign of the regime’s understanding of its weaknesses.

“My view, based on totally open source news, is that this was a face-saving move on the part of the Iranian regime. They felt they had to retaliate as a matter of honor, but they wanted to make sure the response was not escalatory,” Wicker told JI. 

Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) said he saw Iran’s response as an admission from the regime that it lacks the military capacity to be able to escalate the conflict. The Pennsylvania senator noted that he has been saying since last year that “Iran can’t fight for s***” while dismissing claims that the regime had the capacity to create broader, long-term conflict against the West.

“If you can’t defend your own airspace, you don’t have anything left. … Israeli air supremacy is everything, but they [Iran] can’t defend their own airspace. They can’t defend anything, and so they definitely can’t project s***,” Fetterman told JI in an interview on Monday. 

“Right now, it’s not an escalation. … I don’t see it like that. I think it was a different shade of a white flag. I’m not surprised by this. In fact, I honestly expected they would do something. You know, they have to do some things for their domestic audience,” he continued.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) argued that the attack served as evidence of the regime’s weakened state following the U.S. and Israel’s military operations.

“This weekend, President Trump took decisive action to fully disable the regime’s main nuclear facilities. The regime is weak, flailing, and lashing out dangerously. If harm comes to an American as a result of their continued violence, I have full confidence that President Trump will again respond decisively,” Cruz said in a statement.