But a number of skeptical lawmakers — mainly congressional Democrats — expressed concern the attack could spark a wider war

Office of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) hold a joint press conference on Iranian nuclear negotiations at the U.S. Capitol on May 8, 2025.
Many of the highest-ranking Senate Republicans, along with leading pro-Israel Democrats, expressed support for Israel’s preemptive strikes on Iran, but a number of skeptical lawmakers — mostly Democrats — expressed concern that the strikes could set off a broader war in the region.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said, minutes after reports of the operation began, “Proud to stand with Israel.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) soon followed, saying, “Game on. Pray for Israel.”
Cotton later added that “We back Israel to the hilt, all the way,” adding that if “the ayatollahs harm a single American, that will be the end of the ayatollahs.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), said “Israel IS right—and has a right—to defend itself!”
Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said, “We stand with Israel tonight and pray for the safety of its people and the success of this unilateral, defensive action.”
“I am also praying for the brave U.S. service members in the Middle East who keep America safe — Iran would be foolish to attack the United States,” Risch continued.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) emphasized that Iran has been trying for years to wipe out Israel, and that it had just been found in violation of its nonproliferation obligations. He called for efforts toward peace and warned Iran against attacking American troops.
“Today, Israel has determined that it must take decisive action to defend the Israeli people,” Thune said. “The United States Senate stands ready to work with President Trump and with our allies in Israel to restore peace in the region and, first and foremost, to defend the American people from Iranian aggression, especially our troops and civilians serving overseas. Iran should heavily consider the consequences before considering any action against Americans in the region.”
Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) said, “I ask every American to join me in praying for the safety of U.S. personnel in the Middle East and the safety and success of Israel as it takes action against a leading state sponsor of terrorism and our shared enemy, Iran.”
Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Middle East subcommittee, also expressed support for Israel’s preemptive strike.
“Having just visited the region two weeks ago, I support Israel’s decision to preemptively strike Iran and dismantle its nuclear program,” Lawler said. “Iran cannot have nuclear weapons — a position the US and our allies have held for decades. Peace through strength.”
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) said that Iran’s refusal to dismantle its nuclear program is a danger to the U.S. and an existential threat to Israel. “Tonight Israel is taking action to defend itself, and we stand with Israel. Our prayers are with them and all American personnel in the region.”
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), the administration’s former nominee to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said, “The U.S. stands strongly with our ally and partner Israel.”
“May God Bless Israel & the brave IAF [Israeli Air Force] soldiers as they protect their national security and the world’s safety,” Stefanik said. “I know President Trump’s top priority is protecting the American people, our brave U.S. service members, and our national security by ensuring the full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program to ensure they can never develop a nuclear weapon.”
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said, “Israel has an unquestionable right to defend itself” and that he is “proud to stand with Israel.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said that Iran had “given President Trump the middle finger” on demands to dismantle its nuclear capacity. Israel is acting to defend themselves, and we should stand with them.”
Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) said that he supports the attack and “Our commitment to Israel must be absolute.”
“Keep wiping out Iranian leadership and the nuclear personnel,” Fetterman said. “We must provide whatever is necessary — military, intelligence, weaponry — to fully back Israel in striking Iran.”
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) said: “If Israel’s strikes set back Iran’s nuclear program, we’ll all be safer,” adding that the U.S. must protect U.S. citizens and personnel and “must support Israel’s defense.”
Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) said that “Israel is not the aggressor. It is defending itself against an existential threat that long predates the present preemptive strike. The true aggressor is the Islamic Republic and its empire of terror — an empire stained with the blood of innocent Israelis.”
Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH), also noting that the International Atomic Energy Agency had just declared Iran to be in violation of its nonproliferation obligations, said that “Israel is justifiably defending itself and its people.”
“Diplomacy has been given every opportunity, but the Iranian regime refuses to give up their nuclear ambitions,” Landsman said. “There will be peace when Iran no longer has a nuclear program, a civil one sure, and their terror armies dismantled.”
Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) said, “I fully stand with the people of Israel and support her right to defend herself against Iran’s nuclear and terror programs.”
Rep. Rick Crawford (R-AR), the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, emphasized that the U.S. was not involved in the strikes. He pointed blame toward Iran but also called for steps to wind down the conflict quickly.
“I will say I regret that we have come to this breaking point. However, under no circumstance can Iran get its hands on a nuclear weapon,” Crawford said. “A nuclear Iran would only embolden our adversaries and not only pose an undeniable threat to Israel, but also the United States and our Arab allies.”
“Iran pushed the world to this point through its blatant, relentless destabilizing behavior. Israel and others in the region have every right to take the actions needed to defend themselves,” Crawford continued. “I commend the Trump Administration for its tireless efforts to bring peace and stability to the region. I am hopeful a remedy is reached sooner rather than later to stabilize this situation before the stakes get any higher.”
A number of congressional Democrats — and one notable isolationist House Republican — are expressing concern that the strikes will spark a broader war in the region and several described the strikes as designed to sabotage U.S. nuclear negotiations with Tehran.
Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, condemned the strikes as a “reckless escalation that risks igniting regional violence.”
“These strikes threaten not only the lives of innocent civilians but the stability of the entire Middle East and the safety of American citizens and forces,” Reed said. “While tensions between Israel and Iran are real and complex, military aggression of this scale is never the answer.”
He called on both Israel and Iran to “show immediate restraint” and the Trump administration to push for “diplomatic de-escalation before this crisis spirals further out of control.”
Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH), a Republican aligned with the isolationist wing of the party, also appeared to decry the strikes.
“I’m sad to say but some members of Congress and US Senators seem giddy about the prospects of a bigger war,” Davidson said, appending an emoji of a bandaged, frowning face.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) stopped short of praising or criticizing the Israeli attack, while blaming President Donald Trump for failing to bring peace to the Middle East and calling for de-escalation.
“I’m hopeful that cooler heads will prevail in the Middle East and the situation is de-escalated,” Jeffries said. “We certainly believe that Iran should never be allowed to become nuclear capable. They are an enemy not just to Israel, but to the United States and to the free world. But we also want to see a reduction in hostilities.”
Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) said the strikes appear aimed at undermining U.S. negotiations with Iran, which were scheduled to continue this weekend in Oman.
“Iran should know that any targeting of U.S. forces and personnel stationed across the Middle East in retaliation for Israel’s actions would be a grave mistake. I urge the Trump administration to ensure that the protection of our personnel is our top priority,” Kim said.
“Conflict should always be a last resort, especially when diplomacy is ongoing. This decision by [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu to go against American efforts and go alone in strikes puts American and Israeli lives on the line. We should do everything we can to stop this moment from spiraling into a wider conflict and bring parties back to the table to ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.”
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) also described the attack as a sabotage of the nuclear talks and said it shows that world leaders do not respect President Donald Trump. He added in a statement, “we have no obligation to follow Israel into a war we did not ask for and will make us less safe.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), a progressive Israel critic, said the strikes were “deeply disturbing.”
“I don’t agree often with the Trump administration, but I think here it’s important to say we need more negotiation, we need deescalation,” Warren said. “We need to get to a deal.”
Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX), who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, emphasized that the Trump administration needs congressional approval to bring U.S. troops into “Netanyahu’s war.”
“Netanyahu’s reckless strike risks provoking a wider war and pulling in the United States,” Casar said. “Trump must oppose Netanyahu’s escalation and pursue a diplomatic path to deal with Iran’s nuclear program. “
As the Oval Office dominates foreign policy, pro-Israel advocates rethink their Congress-focused playbook

GETTY IMAGES
A general view of the U.S. Capitol Building from the National Mall, in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, May 29, 2025.
For decades, Jewish and pro-Israel groups invested significant resources in building bipartisan relationships with key members of Congress to steer legislation, while helping secure foreign aid and blocking unfavorable initiatives concerning the Middle East.
But that long-standing playbook has appeared less effective and relevant in recent years as Congress has increasingly ceded its authority on foreign policy to the executive branch, a trend that has accelerated with President Donald Trump’s return to office. The dynamic is frustrating pro-Israel advocates who had long prioritized Congress as a vehicle of influence, prompting many to reassess the most effective ways to advocate for preferred policies.
That Congress had no formal role in Trump’s recent decisions to unilaterally reach a ceasefire with the Houthis in Yemen and to lift sanctions on Syria, for example, has stoked speculation that legislators could also be sidelined from ratifying a potential nuclear deal with Iran.
There are any number of reasons why Congress has taken a back seat in shaping foreign affairs, experts say, including Trump’s efforts to consolidate power in the executive branch, most recently by gutting the National Security Council. And Trump’s own power in reshaping the ideological direction of his party, preferring diplomacy over military engagement, has made more-hawkish voices within the party more reluctant to speak out against administration policy.
“Congress is increasingly irrelevant except on nominations and taxes,” Elliott Abrams, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who served as a special envoy for Iran in the first Trump administration, told Jewish Insider. “It has abandoned its once-central role on tariffs, and plays little role in other foreign affairs issues. That’s a long-term trend and we saw it in previous administrations, but it is worsened by the deadlocks on Capitol Hill, the need to get 60 votes to do almost anything, and by Trump’s centralization of power in the White House.”
Previously, “when there was real power in the departments, congressional oversight meant a lot more,” Abrams added. “If you’re a foreign ambassador in Washington, there’s no one to talk to at the NSC, lots of vacancies at State, and while there are plenty of people to meet with on the Hill, what are they going to do for you? You need to see Trump” Abrams said, or Steve Witkoff, the special envoy to the Middle East leading the negotiations with Iran.
The executive branch, to be sure, has long held significant control over foreign policy but it has expanded considerably in the decades following the 9/11 attacks. Since then, a law passed by Congress to authorize the invasion in Iraq in 2003 has been used — and, critics allege, abused — by successive administrations to initiate military action abroad without first seeking approval from lawmakers who are constitutionally empowered to decide when the country goes to war and oversee defense spending.
Still, Congress has also long shown “disinterest” in exercising its power over foreign policy, said Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute. “This was a preexisting condition,” he explained to JI. “By and large, Congress abdicated its oversight role before Trump even came to office,” especially as national security matters have been overshadowed by competing domestic issues such as inflation and immigration, which “resonate more saliently” with voters.
“Trump’s dominance over the Republican Party accounts for much of the acquiescence on the part of his Congress,” observed Stephen Schlesinger, a historian who specializes in international affairs. “But let us not forget that recent Democratic presidents have practically had a free hand, too, in pursuing their own global policies — with little reaction or opposition from their party members.”
Among other examples, Schlesinger cited former President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran — brokered without consent from Congress — as well as former President Joe Biden’s “total support” for Ukraine in its war against Russia.
Republican deference to Trump, however, has set a new standard for such acquiescence, Schlesinger argued, particularly on talks with Iran. “Given the past obsessive Republican fury against a deal with Iran during Democratic administrations, still none in Trump’s party have objected to a nuclear deal with Tehran under Trump, or, for that matter, his solo decision to lift sanctions on Syria, a country led by a former radical Islamic leader,” Schlesinger noted.
“Certainly the reality of governance in Washington today is that Congress may not be totally irrelevant, but they’re an appendage to the whims and desires of the Trump presidency,” said Norman Ornstein, a senior scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “There is little if any pushback or oversight of what Trump” and his advisors “involved in foreign policy and diplomacy are doing — and that’s a change.”
The new dynamic has forced pro-Israel groups to adapt to a new political landscape in which their traditional advocacy has been weakened by Congress’ diminished clout and lack of interest in asserting meaningful supervision over Trump’s recent Middle East policy decisions.
“There are very few remedies for this kind of a standoff where the executive branch has arrogated to itself so much power that Congress is essentially marginalized,” said Danielle Pletka, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who previously worked on the Hill. “When you look at the question of Israel, you have to see it in the context of much broader trends.”
Marshall Wittmann, a spokesperson for AIPAC, argued that both “the administration and Congress play a critical role in strengthening and expanding the U.S.-Israel relationship, and AIPAC works with key leaders in power, on both sides of the aisle and both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue, to build support for the mutually beneficial alliance between America and Israel.”
The absence of congressional influence has come as disagreements have emerged between the Trump administration and the Netanyahu government over ending the war in Gaza and nuclear diplomacy with Iran. Trump’s recent trip to the Middle East — where he met with a range of Arab leaders but did not stop in Israel — was one of the latest indications of deprioritization of America’s closest ally in the region.
Tensions have also surfaced amid ongoing negotiations with Iran. Pro-Israel advocates have voiced concerns that Trump’s negotiating team is nearing an agreement that could simply reinstate the deal brokered by the Obama administration a decade ago — which detractors had criticized as a pathway to a nuclear weapon since it allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium.
The Trump administration has indicated it will not permit Iran to retain domestic nuclear enrichment — even as some officials have sent mixed signals on the matter, contributing to a sense of confusion over the ultimate terms of an agreement. Trump pulled out of the original deal — which was widely opposed by Republicans — during his first administration.
For pro-Israel groups, the risks of clashing with Trump on key issues likely outweigh the benefits, observers contend. “Any organization has to very carefully weigh its equities before publicly taking on the administration,” Daniel Silverberg, a former top foreign policy advisor to Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), told JI.
The pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC has recognized that it is now operating in a unique landscape, according to Manny Houle, a Democratic pro-Israel strategist who previously served as the group’s progressive outreach director in the Midwest. Before Trump was elected, Howard Kohr, AIPAC’s former president, frequently said the group “was all about Congress,” Houle recalled in a recent interview with JI. “Then, Trump was in office and he said we’re going to be dealing with the White House.”
Marshall Wittmann, a spokesperson for AIPAC, argued that both “the administration and Congress play a critical role in strengthening and expanding the U.S.-Israel relationship, and AIPAC works with key leaders in power, on both sides of the aisle and both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue, to build support for the mutually beneficial alliance between America and Israel.”
“President Trump has a strong pro-Israel and anti-Iran record, but his administration evinced early on a lack of expertise and consistency in its policy toward Iran’s nuclear program,” said Michael Makovsky, president and CEO of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. “But recently that position has evolved and strengthened due in no small part to feedback it has gotten.”
“We applaud the administration’s strong statements and actions in support of our ally, commend Congress for passing pro-Israel legislation such as the annual appropriation for lifesaving security assistance to Israel, and appreciate President Trump and congressional leaders both making clear last week that Iran must completely dismantle its nuclear program,” Wittmann said in a statement to JI last week.
Even as Congress has failed to take formal action over points of disagreement with Trump’s recent Middle East directives, some pro-Israel activists suggested their outreach to lawmakers on the Iran talks in particular has yielded substantive results in recent weeks.
“President Trump has a strong pro-Israel and anti-Iran record, but his administration evinced early on a lack of expertise and consistency in its policy toward Iran’s nuclear program,” said Michael Makovsky, president and CEO of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. “But recently that position has evolved and strengthened due in no small part to feedback it has gotten.”
In public and private settings, JINSA and other pro-Israel groups, as well as Israeli officials and congressional Republicans, “have made the case that Trump needs to stick to his initial policy of dismantlement of Iran’s enrichment facilities,” Makovsky said.
“This has contributed to Trump officials pivoting in the past couple weeks to a tougher ‘no enrichment’ stand,” Makovsky told JI last week.
Eric Levine, a top GOP fundraiser and a board member of the Republican Jewish Coalition who recently launched a federal lobbying practice, said “the most important voice Congress will have is if the president makes a deal with Iran. I think that it’s really important that the Senate remains steadfast and safeguards its powers and insists, if there is a deal, it should be counted as a treaty. If he thinks it’s an amazing deal, he should have no trouble passing it.”
Still, it remains to be seen if the toughest voices against Iran in the Senate who have expressed reservations with enrichment limits and other perceived weaknesses of a potential deal will push back against Trump if he lands on an agreement that does not meet their standards. While some Republican lawmakers have spoken out in recent weeks to set expectations for a deal, including Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), observers say they are skeptical that Congress will ultimately seek to flex its authority if an agreement comes forward.
“The ultimate test will be if there’s a vote on Iran,” said former Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY), a pro-Israel Democrat who opposed Obama’s deal in 2015. “As Congress has grown more performative, it has become less deliberative on foreign policy,” he added. “The speaker’s gavel has become a rubber stamp. The result is an abdication by Congress of its delineated responsibilities.”
Eric Levine, a top GOP fundraiser and a board member of the Republican Jewish Coalition who recently launched a federal lobbying practice, said “the most important voice Congress will have is if the president makes a deal with Iran.”
“I think that it’s really important that the Senate remains steadfast and safeguards its powers and insists, if there is a deal, it should be counted as a treaty,” said Levine. “If he thinks it’s an amazing deal, he should have no trouble passing it,” Levine said of Trump’s efforts to reach what he has suggested is an imminent accord.
It is unclear if the White House will seek approval from Congress for a deal, even as lawmakers have recently stressed that an agreement would have no guarantee of surviving in future administrations if not ratified by the legislative branch.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio affirmed during hearings on Capitol Hill last week that U.S. law requires that any deal with Iran be submitted to Congress for review and approval, noting that he had been in Congress when that law, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, was passed. A White House spokesperson declined to confirm if Trump plans to present a potential deal to Congress when reached by JI on Wednesday, deferring to the president and Witkoff’s remarks from the Oval Office — which did not address the matter.
With Congress increasingly on the sidelines, some pro-Israel groups have turned to alternative forms of advocacy to buttress their lobbying efforts in recent years.
“Advocacy tactics are always changing,” James Thurber, a distinguished professor of government at American University and a leading expert on federal lobbying, told JI. “It is like war where opponents must be flexible, try new tools, assess and adjust. It is essential to be persistently focused on the best strategy, theme and message and to not rely on outdated lobbying tactics.”
“Our world has changed,” said Ann Lewis, a veteran Democratic advisor and a former co-chair of Democratic Majority for Israel, whose formidable political arm has actively engaged in congressional primaries featuring sharp divisions over Israel. “Any definition of advocacy that begins post-election is less effective than it deserves to be.”
Indeed, AIPAC’s foray into campaign politics four years ago, marking a major tactical shift for the organization, was a sign of the changing power dynamics in Washington. The group has since helped to elect a range of congressional allies, while working to unseat some of the fiercest critics of Israel in the House and blocking potential antagonists from getting elected.
“Advocacy tactics are always changing,” James Thurber, a distinguished professor of government at American University and a leading expert on federal lobbying, told JI. “It is like war where opponents must be flexible, try new tools, assess and adjust. It is essential to be persistently focused on the best strategy, theme and message and to not rely on outdated lobbying tactics.”
But as most foreign policy decisions now emanate from the White House, some pro-Israel activists say they remain frustrated by the lack of will from Congress to assert its authority, even as they vow their efforts will continue.
“It is tragic that Congress has so blatantly shirked its responsibility to act as a check and balance on the executive branch,” a senior political operative involved in pro-Israel advocacy recently lamented. “But under no circumstances does that mean we stop fighting for the future of the U.S.-Israel relationship.”
Plus, Baraka's bounce alarms N.J. Jewish leaders

Win McNamee/Getty Images
U.S. President Donald J. Trump and Emir of Qatar Tamim bin Hamad al Thani attend a signing ceremony at the Amiri Diwan, the official workplace of the emir, on May 14, 2025, in Doha, Qatar.
Good Thursday morning.
In today’s Daily Kickoff, we look at Newark Mayor Ras Baraka’s rising poll numbers in the final days before New Jersey’s Democratic gubernatorial primary, and look at how Jews in Australia and Canada are reacting to recent liberal party electoral victories in both countries. We also talk to experts about how Israel is viewing the White House’s warming relations with Syria, and report on a bipartisan, bicameral call to the Trump administration to prioritize hostage-release efforts. Also in today’s Daily Kickoff: Sen. Lindsey Graham, Josh Kushner and Sarah Abramson.
What We’re Watching
- President Donald Trump arrived in the United Arab Emirates today as he continues on his multi-country Middle East trip.
- The Senate Armed Services Committee is convening a hearing this morning on foreign military sales.
- Also this morning, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is holding nomination hearings for Joel Rayburn to be assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs and Chris Pratt to be assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs.
- Politico is hosting its Security Summit today in Washington. Speakers include: former National Security Advisors John Bolton and Jake Sullivan, the White House’s Seb Gorka, Sens. Deb Fischer (R-NE), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Eric Schmitt (R-MO) and Reps. Mike Lawler (R-NY), Michael McCaul (R-TX), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL), Rick Crawford (R-AR), Jim Himes (D-CT), Anne Neuberger, former deputy national security advisor for cyber and emerging technologies, and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Craig Singleton.
What You Should Know
A QUICK WORD WITH JI’S MELISSA WEISS
On his first presidential visit to the Gulf nation eight years ago, Trump called Qatar “a funder of terrorism at a very high level.” Last night in Doha, the president praised Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani as an “outstanding man.”
It’s a remarkable turnaround that underscores Doha’s efforts to use its financial largesse to build goodwill and position itself as a global player.
Doha, which a decade ago was ostracized in the region and on the global stage but has since regained its standing, has in recent years served as an intermediary between the West and malign actors (some of which, like Hamas, it financially supports). Earlier this week, al-Thani acknowledged Qatar’s “long outreach” that has included diplomatic efforts in the Russia-Ukraine war, Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Afghanistan.
And at a state dinner given in Trump’s honor last night in Doha, the president asked al-Thani to “help me with the Iran situation.” (American negotiators reportedly presented Iran with a nuclear agreement proposal during the latest round of talks over the weekend.) As Trump left Qatar today, the White House announced that it had secured deals with the country worth $243.5 billion.
While the current and previous administrations have welcomed Qatar’s efforts (specifically with assistance in negotiations over the Israel-Hamas war), Capitol Hill is taking a more measured — and cautious — approach to the Gulf nation, potentially setting up clashes with the White House.
Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), who earlier this week had hedged when asked about Qatar’s intention to gift a luxury jet to Trump, took a harder line against Doha days later, saying he trusts Qatar “like I trust a rest stop bathroom.” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said on Tuesday that the potential gift “will attract very serious questions.”
Qatar has long flexed its economic power and vast wealth to spread controlled messaging (as it does with its Al Jazeera network and affiliated channels), exert influence abroad (as it does with its deep-pocketed funding of American universities), avoid punishment for vast human rights abuses (as it did with the construction of the World Cup facilities) and mend frayed relations (as it did with its reentry into the Gulf Cooperation Council). Yesterday, The Free Press’ Jay Solomon and Frannie Block published an 8,600-word piece examining Qatar’s efforts to gain influence across American society.
Doha’s yearslong efforts have even won over some Republican legislators. Following the announcement yesterday that Qatar had inked an agreement to purchase up to 210 Boeing 787s and 777X aircraft — the largest purchase in the aviation manufacturer’s history — Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) praised the deal, calling it a “game changer” and noting Boeing’s factory in Charleston. “Qatar Airways’ purchase will ensure the Charleston plant has work for many years to come … I appreciate our allies in Qatar for making this investment in Boeing aircraft and I appreciate everything the Trump Administration has done to make this possible,” Graham posted on X.
But more telling of Qatar’s efforts to boost its image is Sen. Roger Marshall’s (R-KS) 180 on Doha. Six years ago, Marshall blasted Qatar’s “well-documented support for terrorism and extremist groups [that] have fueled violence, civil war and bloodshed.” But in a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing on campus antisemitism in March, Marshall denied that documented antisemitic incidents had occurred on campuses that have received Qatari funding and called the Gulf nation “a great ally to America.”
What happened in the intervening years? In 2023, Marshall visited Qatar, where he met with the emir. The following year, the senator met with Qatar’s prime minister in Washington, leading a meeting with a group of Republican senators. In addition, disclosures through the Foreign Agents Registration Act first obtained by the Washington Examiner indicate repeated outreach from lobbyists for Doha to Marshall’s longtime chief of staff, including an invitation to a March 2022 trip to Qatar.
Successive administrations and Capitol Hill have largely looked away from Qatar’s vast influence network. With the world focused on crises around the world, as well as more pressing concerns over Russia, China and Iran, it has been easy for concerns about Qatari influence to fall by the wayside. Doha’s evolution from regional pariah to global power broker reveals an ugly truth about politics: that enough patience and resources can restore the standing of dangerous entities. In the coming weeks and months, the White House and Capitol Hill may be forced to reckon with the true price of that partnership.
ELECTION JITTERS
Newark Mayor Ras Baraka’s late surge in N.J. gubernatorial primary alarms Jewish leaders

With less than a month until New Jersey’s June 10 gubernatorial primary, Jewish community leaders are now confronting the unexpected rise of a far-left Democrat whose campaign is surging even as he has faced scrutiny over his record of commentary on key issues including Israel and antisemitism. Ras Baraka, the longtime mayor of Newark, drew national headlines last week after he was arrested by federal agents on trespassing charges at an immigration detention facility where he had been protesting, in a made-for-TV moment caught on video. The high-profile confrontation has helped to propel Baraka, an outspoken progressive who until recently had been seen as a long shot, to the top of a crowded primary field. A new internal poll commissioned by his campaign showed the Newark mayor closing in on Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ), the establishment favorite, who led by just four points and claimed only 21% of the vote, Jewish Insider’s Matthew Kassel reports.
Community concerns: That Baraka is positioned to pull off a potential upset in the Democratic primary, where a relatively small plurality of the vote could secure his nomination, has raised alarms among some Jewish leaders in the state who have voiced concerns about the mayor’s past praise of Louis Farrakhan, the virulently antisemitic Nation of Islam leader, and his condemnation of Israel’s war in Gaza, among other issues. But as the primary draws closer, Jewish leaders acknowledge that they have not yet developed a playbook to counter Baraka’s ascendance, pointing to a broader pattern of organizational confusion in a state home to a sizable, diverse and politically active Jewish community. “I find the organizing very lacking right now,” one Jewish activist in New Jersey told JI on Wednesday, even as she described “grave concerns” among Jewish community members who have found Baraka’s rhetoric “over the top.”
Bonus: Former Anti-Defamation League National Director Abe Foxman endorsed Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) in the Democratic primary.