A new bipartisan letter sent Friday by 16 House lawmakers to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff argues that any nuclear deal with Iran must permanently dismantle its capacity to enrich uranium — a notable message particularly from pro-Israel Democrats to the administration.

The letter highlights that an insistence on full dismantlement of Iran’s enrichment capabilities is not only a Republican position, and that President Donald Trump will not be able to count on unified Democratic support for a deal that falls short of that benchmark. Previously, 177 House Republicans said they also demand a deal that does not allow enrichment and some pro-Israel Democrats have expressed the view individually.

“We wholeheartedly agree that Iran must not retain any capacity to enrich uranium or continue advancing its nuclear weapons infrastructure,” the letter, which frames the appeal as an endorsement of Rubio and Witkoff’s public positions on the subject, states. “There is widespread bipartisan support for this requirement and we appreciate your commitment to this essential cornerstone of any agreement.”

The letter highlights the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which mandates that any agreement with Iran be submitted for congressional review, and emphasizes, “for any agreement to endure, it must have strong bipartisan support. We urge you to engage with Congress as negotiations proceed to ensure that any final agreement commands broad support.”

The lawmakers called on the officials to work with the U.S.’ European allies to “promptly invoke the snapback mechanism” to reimpose United Nations sanctions on Iran if talks fail to yield an agreement that fully dismantles Iran’s nuclear program.

They note that, given the Oct. 18 expiration of the snapback provision, “the process must begin by late Summer at the latest if no deal is reached. Iran’s repeated violations must be met with clear consequences.”

“The Iranian regime must understand that the United States is unwavering in its demand that Iran’s uranium enrichment capability be totally dismantled,” the letter reiterates. “We appreciate your leadership on this pressing matter vital to America’s national security interests and stand ready to work in a bipartisan manner to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

The letter, led by Reps. Laura Gillen (D-NY) and Claudia Tenney (R-NY), was co-signed by Reps. Dan Goldman (D-NY), Wesley Bell (D-MO), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Brad Schneider (D-IL), Don Bacon (R-NE), Eugene Vindman (D-VA), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), Grace Meng (D-NY), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Ted Lieu (D-CA) and Chris Pappas (D-NH).

Pappas is also mounting a run for the U.S. Senate.

Morgan Ortagus, a key member of Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff’s team, is departing his office, Jewish Insider has learned. 

Ortagus, the deputy special envoy, has been removed from her portfolio in the special envoy’s office, two sources familiar with the matter confirmed to JI. Ortagus had been overseeing the Trump administration’s Lebanon policy and had wanted to take over the Syria file, but was unsuccessful in doing so. 

Israel’s Channel 14 reported over the weekend that Ortagus was expected to leave her position.

Ortagus, who supported Trump’s 2024 bid and campaigned for him, did not respond to JI’s request for comment on the move or if she plans to continue serving in the administration in another capacity. 

The White House did not respond to JI’s request for comment on Ortagus’ future in the administration. 

President Donald Trump appointed Ortagus as Witkoff’s deputy in January, which he announced in an unusual statement expressing reticence about her appointment.

“Early on Morgan fought me for three years, but hopefully has learned her lesson,” Trump said in the statement, referencing Ortagus’ tenure as spokesperson for former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. “These things usually don’t work out, but she has strong Republican support, and I’m not doing this for me, I’m doing it for them. Let’s see what happens.” 

Ortagus’ departure comes less than two weeks after Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio oversaw a widespread purge of officials at the NSC, including those overseeing the Middle East and Israel and Iran portfolios. This followed Trump’s decision to pull former National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, another Iran hawk in the administration, from his role and instead nominate him to be his ambassador to the United Nations.

The staffing developments inside the administration are taking place against the backdrop of an effort by Witkoff and Trump to move ahead with nuclear talks with Iran and a continued push for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

Correction: An earlier version of this story said that Ortagus was leaving the National Security Council. Ortagus was not a member of the NSC.

In his second consecutive day of hearings on Capitol Hill, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that he expects that additional Arab countries will join the Abraham Accords by the end of the year, if not earlier.

“We do have an Abraham Accords office that is actively working to identify a number of countries who have lined up and already I think we may have good news, certainly before the end of this year, of a number of more countries that are willing to join that alliance,” Rubio said a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Wednesday.

The comments are consistent with other recent remarks by President Donald Trump and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.

Rubio added that the administration is currently working on selecting an ambassador for the Abraham Accords, as required under law, to submit for congressional confirmation.

He said that there is “still a willingness” in Saudi Arabia to normalize relations with Israel, but “certain conditions are impediments,” including the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel and the ensuing war.

Rubio’s testimony largely reinforced and added on his comments the day before, on issues including Iran and Syria.

He again insisted that all elements of the Trump administration, including Vice President JD Vance and Witkoff, are unified behind the position that Iran cannot be allowed to maintain its capacity to enrich uranium.

And he affirmed 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 was passed.

At an afternoon hearing with the House Appropriations Committee, Rubio again said that sanctions relating to Iranian proxy terrorism or other malign activities will not be impacted by a nuclear deal that does not address those subjects. Republicans in the past have questioned the distinction between nuclear and non-nuclear sanctions, particularly as part of the original 2015 nuclear deal, which took a similar approach. And they’ve argued that any sanctions relief would allow Iran to expand its support for regional terrorism.

Rubio said the administration is continuing to ramp up sanctions on Iran, and said that European parties to the deal are “on the verge” of implementing snapback sanctions on Iran. He said that the administration would support legislation to implement additional sanctions on Iran’s oil sector.

He denied knowledge of a Tuesday leak by administration officials that Israel was making plans to strike Iran’s nuclear program, adding, “I also don’t think it’s a mystery, though … that Israel has made clear that they retain the option of action to limit Iran from ever gaining a nuclear capability.”

Expanding on comments he made the day before, Rubio said that he favors moving the mission of U.S. security coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian territories under the authority of the U.S. ambassador to Israel so that it can be a better-integrated part of the U.S.’ Israel policy. But he vowed that the core function of the office will continue.

Rubio denied reports of talks between the United States and Saudi Arabia about potential nuclear cooperation outside of a “gold standard” deal, which would include banning domestic enrichment.

The secretary of state reiterated comments about the critical necessity of providing sanctions relief to Syria to help contribute to stability, but he said that continued sanctions relief “does have to be conditioned on them continuing to live by the commitments” that the Syrian government has made verbally, including to combat extremism, prevent Syria from becoming a launchpad for attacks on Israel and form a government that represents, includes and protects ethnic and religious diversity.

He indicated that the U.S. is not actively working to shut down the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, but pledged that the United States will not be providing any further aid to or through that organization and will use its power and funding to look for alternatives.

He said it will be up to other countries whether they continue working with UNRWA, though he noted that the U.S. has been the agency’s largest donor.

Rubio said that he would be supportive, in concept, of legislation to expand current U.S. anti-boycott laws to include compulsory boycotts imposed by international organizations. That legislation was pulled from a House floor vote after right-wing lawmakers falsely claimed it would ban U.S. citizens from boycotting Israel.

Pushing back on calls for the U.S. to withhold weapons sales to the United Arab Emirates over its support for one of the parties involved in the Sudanese Civil War that the U.S. has found is committing genocide, Rubio said that the U.S. is not fully in alignment with the UAE but argued that it’s critical for the U.S. to continue engaging with and maintain a strong relationship with the UAE for its broader foreign policy goals in the Middle East.

He said that maintaining such a relationship and expanding the U.S.’ diplomatic and economic relationship with Abraham Accords countries is also important to ensuring that the Accords continue to be successful.

Rubio said that the State Department had approved restarting aid programs for Jordan that remained frozen — though he noted most were initially exempted from the administration’s blanket freeze. He acknowledged that the frozen programs had been “a source of frustration for [Jordan], and frankly for me.” He continued, “Ultimately, we’re going to get all those programs online, if they’re not online already.”

In a heated back-and-forth with Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), who was brandishing a pocket Constitution, Rubio again defended the administration’s policy of revoking student visas from individuals accused of involvement in anti-Israel activity on college campuses, saying that they are coming to the United States to “tear this country [apart]” and “stir up problems on our campuses.”

Addressing the case of Rümeysa Öztürk, a Tufts University graduate student that supporters have said was detained solely for writing an op-ed in a student newspaper criticizing Israel, Rubio claimed the situation is not as has been represented. “Those are her lawyers’ claims and your claims, those are not the facts,” Rubio said.

Asked by Jayapal about a comment — “Jews are untrustworthy and a dangerous group” — made by an Afrikaner refugee recently admitted to the United States from South Africa, Rubio said that he would “look forward to revoking the visas of any lunatics you can identify.”

But when presented with the fact that the individual in question was admitted as a refugee, not on a visa, Rubio said that refugee admissions are “a totally different process,” adding “student visas are a privilege.”

Speaking at an event celebrating Israeli Independence Day on Monday, Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff suggested that he expects additional countries will join the Abraham Accords in the coming year.

“We think [we] will have some, or a lot of announcements, very, very shortly, which we hope will yield great progress by next year,” Witkoff said of the prospects for additional normalization between Israel and Arab states, at an event organized by the Israeli embassy in Washington.

Witkoff only gave a glancing mention of Iran, with which he is the lead U.S. negotiator, in his brief remarks, pledging that Tehran would never obtain a nuclear weapon, but not elaborating on the talks beyond that.

The U.S. envoy emphasized the need for Israeli unity, saying, “I urge the Israeli people to choose unity over division, vision over disagreement and hope over despair. When you do, Israel’s future will shine brighter than ever.”

Witkoff also said that one of the most joyous moments of his life was visiting with recently freed hostages from Gaza and singing Am Yisrael Chai with them and their families. He pledged to work “tirelessly this year” toward “peace, prosperity and for Israel, unity.”

The event for Yom Ha’Atzmaut also featured remarks from Secretary of Energy Doug Burgum.

A group of pro-Israel Jewish House Democrats wrote to Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff on Thursday warning that Iran must restore International Atomic Energy Agency access to its nuclear sites before any deal can move forward in earnest.

Under a reported proposal put forward by Iran, Iran would not allow such inspections to resume until well into the implementation of a nuclear agreement.

“Absent verifiable data on Iran’s current nuclear activities, it is not possible to conduct meaningful, comprehensive negotiations or assess compliance with any potential future agreement,” Reps. Brad Schneider (D-IL), Dan Goldman (D-NY) and Greg Landsman (D-OH) wrote, in a letter obtained by Jewish Insider. “The failure to establish a true baseline undermines the credibility of the negotiating process and exposes the United States and its partners to strategic miscalculation.”

They said that international inspectors must regain “full, unfettered access to Iran’s nuclear facilities, before establishing final parameters of a possible agreement.”

The lawmakers argued that, because inspectors have been blocked from key sites in recent years as Iran has significantly increased its enrichment and stockpile of nuclear materials, the U.S. and its partners “lack reliable visibility into the scope and status of Iran’s nuclear program.”

“Restoring inspector access is the necessary foundation for any serious diplomatic effort,” the lawmakers wrote. “Without verified insight into Iran’s current nuclear activities, the United States cannot credibly assess risks, define objectives, or safeguard the interests of our allies.”

The three Democrats said that better knowledge of Iran’s current activities and stockpiles is “particularly urgent” given recent assessments that Iran could quickly have sufficient fissile material for multiple nuclear weapons, its missile program continues to advance and it continues to support regional terrorism.

The letter is the latest in a series of signs in recent days that pro-Israel Democrats are alarmed by the Trump administration’s apparent interest in moving quickly toward a nuclear agreement with the Islamic Republic.

Asked on Thursday about a New York Times report that the U.S. had rejected an Israeli plan to strike Iran, Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) told JI, “We should never play public footsie with the parent company of terror and one of our top adversaries. We should take the hardest line against Iran’s terror and nuclear programs.”

Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) similarly expressed alarm a day prior about the Times story.

Iran International reported on Thursday the alleged parameters of a deal that Iran had put forward — a proposal similar to the original 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Under the deal, Iran would “temporarily” halt its enrichment to 3.67% in exchange for access to frozen assets and the ability to export oil. It would not restore IAEA inspections or “end high-level uranium enrichment” until the second stage of the deal, at which point the U.S. would be required to lift some sanctions and prevent the implementation of U.N. snapback sanctions on Iran.

Under the third phase of the proposed deal, Iran would move its stockpile of highly enriched uranium to a third country, while the U.S. would lift all sanctions on Iran. Iran would not be required to curtail its missile program or support for terrorism — which have prompted some of the sanctions in question. Iran is also demanding that Congress approve the deal. 

Iran International reported that Witkoff “welcomed the proposals,” to the surprise of Iranian negotiators. Some in the U.S. have worried that Witkoff, who has delivered mixed messages publicly on the U.S. position, would negotiate a weak deal.

The proposal saw immediate backlash from Iran hawks.

“Terrible proposal. Iran has no reason to enrich ANY uranium. 3.67% enriched is just a few weeks away from weapons grade. And Iran is proposing to only TEMPORARILY limit enrichment to this level,” Fred Fleitz, the vice chair of the America First Policy Institute’s Center for American Security, a pro-Trump think tank, said. “This is a Iranian cynical ploy to buy time and continue its weaponization program.”

Fleitz served for several months as chief of staff of the National Security Council in Trump’s first administration.

“The regime wants a return to the failed JCPOA, which President Trump rightly rejected. The U.S. response must be firm: dismantle your nuclear program completely and verifiably — or face consequences,” FDD Action, an advocacy group affiliated with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said. “Congress must reject any deal that leaves Iran’s nuclear infrastructure intact.”

Jason Brodsky, the policy director of United Against Nuclear Iran, said the proposal is “unserious and should be dead on arrival.”

The Trump administration’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, who is leading U.S. nuclear talks with Iran, again suggested on Monday that the U.S. is willing to allow Iran to maintain some level of nuclear enrichment, as it did during the original 2015 nuclear deal. But Witkoff appeared to walk back those remarks on Tuesday, saying that the U.S. is demanding that Iran eliminate its enrichment and weaponization programs.

“The conversation with the Iranians will be much about two critical points: One, enrichment. As you mentioned, they do not need to enrich past 3.67%,” Witkoff said on Fox News on Monday. “You do not need to run a civil nuclear program where you’re enriching past 3.67%. This is going to be much about verification on the enrichment program. And then ultimately verification on weaponization. That includes missiles.”

Allowing Iran to continue any nuclear enrichment provides Tehran with an easy pathway to a nuclear weapon, critics have argued.

But Witkoff offered a different position on Tuesday in a post on X.

“Any final arrangement must set a framework for peace, stability, and prosperity in the Middle East — meaning that Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program,” Witkoff wrote. 

Witkoff’s follow-up post reportedly came around the time of a White House meeting held by President Donald Trump on the nuclear negotiations. The new comments appeared to contradict both his remarks on Fox News and other recent comments that the U.S. would be open to a deal that included verification that Iran is not weaponizing its nuclear program, and that dismantlement was only an opening negotiating position.

Witkoff’s initial comments on Fox set off a wave of concerned reactions from the U.S. and Israel. Some Iran hawks appear concerned that the Trump administration may be headed toward a deal similar to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Analysts seen as more sympathetic to the regime, meanwhile, celebrated the initial remarks.

Following Witkoff’s Tuesday comments, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) decried anyone in Trump’s orbit pushing for a repeat of the 2015 deal.

“Anyone urging Trump to enter into another Obama Iran deal is giving the President terrible advice,” Cruz said. “[Trump] is entirely correct when he says Iran will NEVER be allowed to have nukes. His team should be 100% unified behind that.”

Cruz was responding to a post from conservative commentator Mark Levin expressing deep skepticism of a new deal with Iran. Levin has openly criticized Witkoff’s apparent concessions to the Iranian regime.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) responded similarly to Levin’s post.

“As President Trump said, the only solution is Iran completely dismantling its program, or we should do it for them,” Cotton said. “Those who minimize the risk of this regime are dead wrong. Just look at the hundreds of missiles Iran launched at Israel in the past year, aimed at massacring civilians (including many Americans living in Israel). Imagine how much worse it would be with a nuclear weapon.”

Last week, before talks in Oman began, a group of nine House Republicans led by Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-NY) wrote to the administration standing behind the position that Iran’s nuclear program must be “fully and verifiably dismantled.”

“The JCPOA’s failed sunset provisions, lack of robust verification mechanisms, and allowance for continued centrifuge development have all but ensured Iran’s ability to achieve nuclear breakout within a matter of months,” the lawmakers wrote. “The regime in Iran must understand that there is no situation which allows it to retain a nuclear weapons capability, and there is no scenario in which the United States will accept anything short of its full and permanent disarmament.”

Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett argued on X on Tuesday, before Witkoff’s walk-back, that “the only deal worth making with Iran” would be one that not only completely dismantles its nuclear program but also ends its sponsorship of terrorism and its ballistic missile program.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, the US has amassed for itself unprecedented leverage,” Bennett said. “It would be a historic miss to allow Iran to regroup and threaten us—the US, Israel and the rest of the world—again.”

Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Jewish Insider he believes Witkoff “wants to return to” the JCPOA and had, in his public comments, “effectively conceded enrichment to the Iranians.”

“His challenge is that he has to come back with a deal that doesn’t look like [the] JCPOA, because then Trump would be embarrassed by having signed a deal that essentially is the same deal he withdrew from in 2018,” Dubowitz said. “Witkoff’s challenge is to figure out how to present [the] JCPOA but to do it in a way that looks like it’s a better deal.”

Dubowitz argued that it’s essentially impossible to implement sufficient safeguards and verification to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear warhead — as Witkoff had appeared to suggest on Fox — “because the Iranians can build a warhead in a laboratory the size of a classroom in a country that’s two-and-a-half times the size of Texas.”

“I think [Witkoff] comes out and makes these comments about enrichment and then congressional Republicans get upset or [National Security Advisor Mike] Waltz and [Secretary of State Marco] Rubio push back hard internally, and [Secretary of Defense Pete] Hegseth, and then he comes back and makes his statement today,” Dubowitz said. “He’s kind of going back and forth between conceding enrichment and dismantlement depending on who his audience is.”

Jason Brodsky, the policy director of United Against Nuclear Iran, told JI that allowing Iran to continue enriching uranium to 3.67% “would enable” Iran to “extort the United States,” and said that Trump should remain consistent on insisting on full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program.

Brodsky said that allowing Iran to enrich to 3.67% was the “original sin” of the JCPOA “and that set the table for the situation that we’re in today.”

“We need to learn the lessons of the past,” Brodsky said. “The JCPOA framework failed … It’s a flawed, fundamentally failed framework of dealing with the Iranian issue.”

Brodsky praised one element of Witkoff’s original Fox comments: limits on Iran’s missile program. The lack of provisions relating to the missile program “was one of the flaws of the original JCPOA,” Brodsky said.

“But also there are a lot of other questions regarding sanctions relief and mechanisms to prevent Iran from using sanctions relief … under any deal from funding its malign behavior in the region,” Brodsky continued.

Dubowitz argued that it will ultimately be up to Trump whether to accept a deal along the lines of the JCPOA and “spin it as the greatest deal ever negotiated” in order to bring sufficient congressional support. 

He said he thinks it will be difficult for congressional Republicans to agree to a deal similar to the JCPOA given that many of them rejected that deal in 2015. “The Iran issue, to me, is the exception where Trump cannot have his way … given the congressional investment in this issue over 20 years.”

Dubowitz added that Israel would also need to decide whether and how to publicly oppose such a deal and how to calibrate its military operations, or if it would defer to Trump. He further warned that allowing Iran — and potentially Saudi Arabia — to enrich could set off a worldwide “proliferation cascade.”

Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council who also served in senior State Department and Pentagon roles in the Biden administration, told JI that Witkoff’s comments on Fox were “certainly confusing to many audiences — the Iranians, Congress, maybe others in the administration” coming as Witkoff’s first public interview following the talks in Oman.

“It may be that the president is zig-zagging a bit on what he thinks is an acceptable deal, and that means his negotiator has to make adjustments, but it’s probably a mistake to do that in public on a day-to-day basis,” Shapiro said.

Shapiro said he continues to believe it will be difficult to achieve an agreement that would dismantle the Iranian nuclear program. He said he did not think it’s likely that the administration or Congress would agree to a deal that allows continued enrichment, adding that returning to a JCPOA-type scenario would be technically difficult given the advancement in Iran’s nuclear program in the ensuing years.

Shapiro suggested it’s more likely that talks will stall, that snapback sanctions will be imposed and that Iran will respond by withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or making a move toward weaponization, which would require the U.S. and Israel to consider a military response.

The former ambassador argued in a recent article that the opportunity is ripe for military action against Iran’s nuclear program. “The timing, need, and opportunity may never be more compelling. And, arguably, a military option is more feasible now than at any time in recent decades,” Shapiro wrote.

Shapiro told JI that, alternatively, the U.S. and Iran could agree to an extension of the snapback deadline to continue talks and/or a “freeze-for-freeze” deal with some sanctions rollback and potentially a reduction in Iran’s nuclear stockpile. “That’s a possible scenario, but even that agreement is going to be very difficult to reach, given how advanced the Iranian program is right now.”

Witkoff’s follow-up comments on Tuesday appeared to ease some concerns in Washington.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who has been skeptical of efforts to negotiate with Iran, approvingly reposted Witkoff’s later comment, saying, “Completely agree with Special Envoy Witkoff’s statement that any deal with Iran regarding its nuclear program cannot include an enrichment capability because that is how you make a nuclear weapon.”

Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) responded to Witkoff’s post saying, “Any deal with Iran must include a complete end to their nuclear program. No exceptions.”

AIPAC in a statement thanked Witkoff “for your insistence that Iran eliminate its enrichment and weaponization programs entirely. Time-bound negotiations must permanently and verifiably dismantle Iran’s nuclear weapons program.”