Senate Republicans on Tuesday expressed skepticism about President Donald Trump’s decision to name Bill Pulte, a lawyer and Trump ally who has been working on housing policy issues and has no known intelligence or national security background, as acting director of national intelligence.

Pulte will take over the agency, which coordinates efforts across the intelligence community, after DNI Tulsi Gabbard resigns later this month. Trump had originally announced that Gabbard’s current chief deputy, Aaron Lukas, a career intelligence official, would be assuming the acting role, but pivoted without explanation.

It’s not clear yet whether Trump plans to nominate Pulte, who he said will simultaneously continue in his current roles as director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency and chairman of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as permanent DNI, but given initial reactions from critical Senate Republicans, he would likely struggle to be confirmed. The statute establishing the post also requires that the nominee be an individual with experience in national security.

Under federal law, Pulte could serve in the role in an acting capacity for up to 210 days, before requiring Senate confirmation.

Leading Senate Republicans said they did not think Pulte was qualified for the role.

“I don’t see any evidence of qualifications for that job, but as you know the Senate doesn’t have a role to play in acting [appointments],” Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said. Cornyn would be a crucial swing vote on the Senate Intelligence Committee if Pulte is nominated for the permanent role, and was recently defeated in his primary by a Trump-backed challenger.

“He doesn’t seem very qualified,” Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), also recently defeated by a Trump-backed primary challenger, agreed.

Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC), who also sits on the Intelligence Committee, offered a terse response. “Certainly an interesting choice. There’s a lot of talented people that I probably would have considered. Congrats on his nom[ination],” Budd said.

Other Senate Republicans couched their comments, emphasizing their lack of familiarity with Pulte and his record, and saying they were not aware of whether he had any national security experience (per his public record, Pulte does not).

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), a member of the Intelligence Committee, said that he did not know what experience Pulte has in intelligence, or whether he would be nominated for the role in the long-term. But he emphasized that intelligence experience is critical for the job.

“That role’s pretty important in coordinating people from a lot of different agencies, you’ve got to have some level of trust in the different agencies to be able to help move,” Lankford said. “The ODNI’s role is to be able to see where are the siloes and to be able to help tear those down to make sure we keep our nation secure. If you don’t know those different roles — it’s not a matter of knowing intelligence products, it’s knowing how each agency actually works. That’s the bigger challenge. If you don’t have any familiarity with that, that does make that job tougher.”

He said separately that it’s critical for the job to remain “nonpartisan.”

“I had no idea he had national security experience. I’m going to have to look into his resume,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), who is retiring and has broken on numerous occasions with the administration.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) said that she doesn’t know anything about Pulte, including whether he had any intelligence or military background or even a security clearance.

She said she’s not concerned about her lack of familiarity with Pulte “yet, because maybe there’s a lot in his background that is relevant to this important position. As one of the authors of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which created the position of DNI, I obviously care a great deal about having a qualified individual in that position.”

Other top Senate Republicans were also hardly enthusiastic about Trump’s pick.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said, when asked if he was worried about Pulte weaponizing the role, “we don’t need a weaponized DNI, we need professionals there,” but said he had “just heard about it.”

“If he’s somebody they want in that position permanently, he’s got, as you all know, a lengthy road ahead of him,” Thune continued.

Asked at a press conference later in the day about the choice, Thune deferred to Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton (R-AR), who said he has “no observations” on the choice of Pulte.

Trump’s choice of Pulte for the role is likely to fuel greater concerns that he aims to politicize and weaponize the role for his own ends. Pulte, in his current role, became perhaps best-known for pursuing investigations against and making allegations that various political adversaries of Trump were engaged in mortgage fraud.

Gabbard faced backlash for her alleged involvement in manipulating intelligence information to fit the administration’s preferred narrative, and for her involvement in an FBI raid on an elections office in Georgia, linked to Trump’s claims that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent.

In a scathing statement, Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that Trump’s appointment of Pulte “makes clear that this president is not looking for an intelligence leader who will follow the facts or speak truth to power, but rather someone who will be willing to shape intelligence around the president’s wishes, regardless of the cost to the American people.”

He said that Pulte is not only unqualified for the job, but “appears to have been selected precisely because the White House believes he will provide the narrative it wants, not the intelligence we need,” ultimately raising the risk of a terrorist attack.

Pulte’s appointment could make the passage of critical legislation renewing federal foreign surveillance authorities more difficult. The legislation was already plagued by opposition on both sides.

Hawkish Senate Republicans expressed outrage on Saturday over the reported terms of a U.S. ceasefire deal with Iran, calling the agreement a defeat for the U.S. filled with major concessions to the Iranian regime.

“I am deeply concerned about what we are hearing about an Iran ‘deal,’ being pushed by some voices in the administration,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said on Saturday.

Cruz said that Trump’s decision to strike Iran was correct and “the most consequential decision of his second term, but said that ending the war on the reported terms would be a failure.

“If the result of all that is to be an Iranian regime — still run by Islamists who chant ‘death to America’ — now receiving billions of dollars, being able to enrich uranium & develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, then that outcome would be a disastrous mistake,” Cruz continued.

He said that he is “pray[ing] the early reports are wrong” but said the fact that former Biden administration Iran envoy Rob Malley praised the reports is “not encouraging.”

“President Trump believes in peace through strength, and his strong leadership has already made America much safer,” Cruz said. “He should continue to hold the line, defend America & enforce the red lines he has repeatedly drawn.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that ending the war along the proposed terms would be conceding that there is no military solution to defeating Iran. 

“If a deal is struck to end the Iranian conflict because it is believed that the Strait of Hormuz cannot be protected from Iranian terrorism and Iran still possesses the capability to destroy major Gulf oil infrastructure, then Iran will be perceived as being a dominate force requiring a diplomatic solution,” Graham said.

He said that such an outcome would shift the balance of power in the region and “be a nightmare for Israel.”

“Also, it makes one wonder why the war started to begin with if these perceptions are accurate. I personally am a skeptic of the idea that Iran cannot be denied the ability to terrorize the Strait and the region cannot protect itself against Iranian military capability,” Graham continued. “It is important we get this right.”

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, shared Graham’s post.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, had urged Trump on Friday to ignore advisors urging an agreement with Iran, and encouraged the administration to return to war so as not to leave behind a legacy of weakness.

“The rumored 60-day ceasefire — with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith — would be a disaster,” Wicker said Saturday. “Everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught!”

Meanwhile, other congressional Republicans are expressing support for the administration’s approach.

“President Trump is the ONLY one who could have gotten Iran — the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism — to the negotiating table,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said. “We are greatly encouraged to learn a PEACE DEAL in Iran is underway — and look forward to learning more about the specifics. Under President Trump’s leadership, our nation is stronger, more respected on the global stage, and safer than ever before.”

Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) said he’d spoken to the White House about the proposed deal and expressed support for it.

“President Trump will land this deal and end the conflict on his terms,” Fine said. “The Mullahs will never have a nuclear weapon.”

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also lambasted the reported deal’s terms, calling it “straight out of the Wendy Sherman-Robert Malley-Ben Rhodes playbook: Pay the IRGC to build a WMD program and terrorize the world,” referring to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal struck by the Obama administration. He also called for a return to war.

Pompeo’s post faced furious backlash from White House Communications Director Steven Cheung, Trump advisor Alex Brusewitz and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL).

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) became the latest of a small number of Senate Republicans to break ranks and vote with the majority of Democrats in favor of an effort to force an end to the war in Iran on Wednesday.

She joined Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who voted for the second time for such an effort, and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who has consistently voted with Democrats on the issue. Nevertheless, the effort still fell short of a majority of the Senate, or of the 60 vote threshold needed for passage, with a final vote of 49 in favor to 50 against.

Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) remained the only Democrat to vote against the war powers effort.

Murkowski has been working with other Senate Republicans on an Authorization for Use of Military Force to set limits on the U.S. operations against Iran, but it remains unclear when she plans to introduce it or what its scope will be.

Murkowski and Collins’ votes suggest they’re unconvinced by the administration’s assertions that the military operations that began in late February have now concluded. The War Powers Act sets a 60-day deadline for military action without congressional approval.

“You’ve got a timeline that has taken us beyond the 60 days,” Murkowski told reporters. “I thought that perhaps we would get … more clarity from the administration in terms of where we are, and I haven’t received it. So I felt that it was now time to advance a discharge so that we can discuss our responsibilities as Congress under the War Powers Act.”

Collins said following the prior vote, two weeks ago, that she had voted for the resolution in order to enforce the War Powers Act.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), who previously said his position might change after the 60-day mark and has been urging the administration not to restart military operations, again voted against the war powers effort.

“I think the administration’s in compliance, the president’s [in] compliance with the war powers statute given his certification to Congress … saying that he had terminated hostilities under Operation Epic Fury,” Hawley told Jewish Insider, echoing comments he made earlier this week. “I welcome the termination of hostilities … I’m glad [Trump] has resisted some of my colleagues’ calls to return to large-scale bombing and is pursuing an end to the conflict. I think that’s good.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) had urged Republicans not to break ranks on the issue while President Donald Trump is in China on a state visit this week.

“Right now, the president’s overseas,” Thune said. “He’s negotiating with the Chinese on a whole range of issues, some of which bear on national security, and I think it would be best if everybody hung together and supported the president.”

Sen. John Curtis (R-UT), who had previously expressed opposition to any military operations beyond the 60-day deadline, also voted against the resolution. He suggested to reporters that the efforts from Democrats were not “serious.”

“I’ve yet to see a serious war powers vote. Let’s admit it, all this is a poke at the president,” Curtis said.

Curtis told reporters later in the day that the situation and the path forward is not simple, and that many questions including whether the U.S. is in a ceasefire, whether hostilities have actually stopped and whether the U.S. is drawing down from operations in Iran need to be answered to shape his approach to the issue.

He said that there is not “any question in my mind” that the 60-day period has expired. He reiterated that he would not fund the war beyond 60 days without congressional authorization.

Asked by JI whether he would introduce his own war powers resolution or AUMF as an alternative to those pushed by Democrats, Curtis indicated he does not plan to do so. “Ever since 1973,” when the War Powers Act was first passed, “Congress has struggled with what the answer is.”

He said he wants to ensure the administration maintains freedom to act in an emergency scenario. He said that drawing the proper boundaries is “not easy, and there’s a reason nothing’s been done on it. It’s not a matter of will, it’s a matter of where do you draw that line? I do think it’s time to have that conversation and count me in, in a group that would try to define that.”

Asked about the potential for renewed military action, he said he would have to evaluate it and the requirements for notifying Congress based on events as they occur.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) told reporters he wants to work with the administration on an AUMF, dismissing comments by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth yesterday indicating that the administration feels it does not need and does not plan to seek an AUMF if it returns to combat.

The House is set to vote on a war powers resolution on Thursday, which stands a greater chance of passage. However, Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH), who voted for the first war powers resolution that came before the House earlier this year, said he plans to vote “present” tomorrow, as he did on the second House vote.

Jewish Insider Washington reporter Matthew Shea contributed reporting.

With President Donald Trump reportedly mulling the resumption of military action against Iran, fault lines are opening up among Senate Republicans over the prospect of a renewed military effort.

Some prominent Senate Republicans publicly called for the U.S. to resume military operations this weekend, after Trump dismissed as a nonstarter Iran’s latest negotiating proposal. Other colleagues joined them on Monday.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) said he thinks military operations must resume. “It’s the only thing that’s going to work, unfortunately,” Scott told Jewish Insider. Asked whether the administration needs to seek congressional approval to resume fighting, he said, “I think the president should go forward.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, reiterated that he “hope[s]” Project Freedom, the administration’s effort to protect shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, is resumed, after writing to Trump on X on Sunday that it’s time to “get back to business.” He said that he would not expect the administration to come to Congress for authorization if that effort were to continue.

Others are leaving the prospect of military action on the table without fully ruling out a diplomatic path, while offering varying degrees of skepticism about how realistic a deal actually would be.

Asked about resuming the war, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said, “We need to clear the Strait of Hormuz, and I support doing that by whatever means necessary.” Cornyn faces a competitive primary runoff in late May, and a hotly contested general election race in November should he be victorious in the primary.

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) said that the U.S. “has a problem” as long as the Iranian regime remains in place and has the capacity to produce a nuclear weapon, “and we’re going to have to address it one way or the other.”

“I’m hopeful for a diplomatic solution, but I don’t think these fanatics over there necessarily believe that a diplomatic solution is what they really want,” Rounds continued. “I think they’d rather martyr themselves, and I think they’d murder millions of their own people if they could.”

“I think we all want to get this resolved as quickly as possible,” Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC) said. “I would say, let’s focus right now. Let’s see if China wants to play a role in this, and we should probably know more by this weekend. But I don’t think anyone wants to end this in a decisive way more than President Trump.”

He predicted that the war would be a major topic of conversation in Trump’s meetings with leaders in Beijing later this week.

“The whole world’s watching right now,” Budd continued. “But look, we need to resolve this permanently, and we want to resolve it as soon as possible. And I know that’s President Trump’s goal.”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), among the most prominent advocates in the Senate for keeping the war brief, praised the administration for notifying Congress at the beginning of the month that it considered hostilities concluded, and urged the administration not to reengage.

“I welcome his statement that the president sent … saying that the original operation — he had terminated those hostilities. That’s a good thing. That’s a good outcome. I certainly hope that will hold,” Hawley said. “I think we’re in a posture now where he’s clearly trying to conclude a long-term peace, which I think is good. But I welcomed his statement that hostilities have terminated.”

He praised Trump for not following his colleagues’ calls to return to war.

“I want to applaud the termination of hostilities,” Hawley said. “He’s been urged to return to full scale bombing, to his original bombing campaign by many of my colleagues over the last two weeks. He’s very pointedly not done so. … I’m glad that so far the president’s not listened to my colleagues who want to do something very different.”

Hawley dismissed followup questions about whether he believed that the hostilities had indeed terminated as the administration claimed, with U.S. forces remaining in the region and continuing certain operations even during the ceasefire. 

The administration faced a 60-day statutory deadline to conclude operations against Iran without congressional approval under the War Powers Act at the end of April. Hawley said the administration appears to be following the same precedent set by the Obama administration during operations in Libya.

“The ‘war’ is a very broad term. The statute speaks particularly to ‘hostilities,’” he said.

Senate Republicans are increasingly skeptical about the future of U.S. military engagement in Iran as the 60-day deadline for the war mandated by the War Powers Resolution approaches.

Under the 1973 law, the president cannot sustain military operations for more than 60 days without congressional authorization or a formal declaration of war, after which U.S. forces must be withdrawn. The White House can request a 30-day extension — with written justification to Congress — should it present “unavoidable military necessity.” 

Short of a formal declaration of war, Congress can authorize continued operations through an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), similar to that enacted following the 9/11 attacks, which would provide the legal basis for the administration to sustain the campaign. 

But the prospects for such a measure remain uncertain, as it would require a high-stakes public vote that could divide Republicans.

With the 60-day deadline approaching this week, GOP lawmakers told Jewish Insider they expect the White House to comply with the statute and notify Congress of a 30-day extension — though they remain uncertain and divided over whether they would support authorizing continued military action.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) said he will not “quibble” over whether the exact deadline is met, however he stressed that the White House should respect the law on the books. 

“I’m not going to quibble over a day or two, but people are saying we don’t know if the War Powers Resolution is constitutional … the reality is it’s on the books, ratified by Congress,” Tillis said. “[The White House should] follow it and at least ask for an extension, and give us clarity on why you need the extension beyond the 60 days. Then it gives them 30 days to be clear on what they need for the appropriations request,” he said, referring to the coming supplemental funding request from the administration. 

Tillis did not indicate whether he believed an authorization would be needed, but said he would “support an AUMF that is drafted and supported by Republicans.” He called the recent rounds of war powers votes initiated by Democrats “political theater.”

“They’re not a serious effort to understand the details of what the president wants to accomplish and then provide congressional support to do it,” Tillis said. “I think if we do that, it strengthens our hand in dealing with the murderers posing as the mullahs of Iran.” 

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) did not commit to whether he would support an AUMF. He told JI that it will depend on several factors, including an explanation from the White House. 

“It’ll depend on the information that they [the White House] provide to us, and we’ll see if they’re actually intending to stay there for an extended period of time, or if they’re going to have boots on the ground, or whether they’re going to be withdrawing from the area based on any kind of peace agreement,” Rounds said. 

Rounds said his “expectation” is that the White House will “notify us [Congress] of an additional 30-day extension.”

 “We’ve begun the process now of both classified and an open hearing tomorrow,” Rounds said, referring to a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing taking place on Thursday with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine. “So I think now steps will start to happen in terms of a more complete congressional review.” 

However, Rounds noted that regardless of where the war heads, he expects that “this chapter in our history has not closed.”

“I suspect we’re still going to have to deal with an Iranian regime, which is a threat to the entire world,” he said. 

Tillis said he had not heard anything on the White House potentially asking for a 30-day extension, but said in response to Rounds’ comments that  “[Rounds] is on the Senate Armed Services committee, so that’s good news. I would expect Senate Armed Services Committee members to know before me. That’s good.” 

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) also did not signal whether he would support an AUMF. While he noted that he believes the White House has “been very careful to follow the war powers framework this whole conflict,” he stressed that he would like to see hostilities wind down and is skeptical of voting for a move that opens up the conflict further. 

“Hopefully [there will be] an end to the war,” Hawley said, adding that he hopes “the president and secretary of state will be able to come back to Congress [and say] that they’re working to end the conflict and that active hostilities are over.” 

He added that he wants the White House to do something “better than ask for 30 more days.”

“Clearly the president is trying to get to a peace deal here, I mean he says it everyday. It’s clear what he’s trying to do. He does not want to go back,” Hawley said. “We’re not bombing. He has said he doesn’t want to go back to that, which I agree with by the way. So I think we should bring this to a close.” President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that he’s rejecting Iran’s latest proposal to end the war as it omits any concessions on the country’s nuclear program.

Hawley said that Congress “can always debate an AUMF” if the White House doesn’t ask for a 30-day extension, but emphasized that he would prefer to “keep on that track” of winding down the war. 

“I don’t really want to authorize a war, I want to end it,” Hawley said. “If we can’t, if the administration doesn’t ask for more time, if there are no additional certifications from them, I think we’re in AUMF territory, which would be kind of unfortunate. I would prefer not to vote to open up a conflict that I think ought to be wound down.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), meanwhile, said that he would be “open” to supporting an AUMF, but “would be skeptical that it could pass.” He added that Trump is “relying on his own power within the Constitution.” 

“We don’t have any American troops on the ground, and I don’t think that’s the president’s idea,” Cornyn said. “I mean, we’ve seriously degraded their ability to threaten their neighbors and that’s a good thing.”

“But unfortunately, it looks like now the supreme leader is out of the picture, that the more radical IRGC elements [are coming to power], which you can’t trust them so I wouldn’t trust any agreement that you might have,” Cornyn added. “I think President Trump ought to finish the job he started and make sure there’s not a threat to us or to the region for the foreseeable future.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth did not give advance notice to senior Republican senators before announcing on Wednesday that he was firing Navy Secretary John Phelan and had already tapped his replacement, causing surprise and confusion on Capitol Hill.

“I found out about it the way everybody else did,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) told Jewish Insider of the Pentagon’s announcement on social media of Phelan’s dismissal.

Reached for comment, the Pentagon referred JI to Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell’s statement on X — the first public announcement of the news.

“Secretary of the Navy John C. Phelan is departing the administration, effective immediately. On behalf of the Secretary of War and Deputy Secretary of War, we are grateful to Secretary Phelan for his service to the Department and the United States Navy,” Parnell said on X. “We wish him well in his future endeavors.”

After taking part in White House meetings earlier Wednesday, Phelan was on Capitol Hill in the afternoon for a pair of pre-scheduled meetings, the first with Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the second immediately after with Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), the committee’s ranking member. Phelan’s departure was posted to the Pentagon’s social media pages minutes after Phelan walked out of Reed’s office, a source familiar with the matter told JI. 

A GOP senator on the committee who spoke to Reed and Wicker after the Pentagon announced Phelan’s immediate dismissal told JI that the topic of Phelan’s future in his role did not come up in either meeting, and that none of the three men was expecting such a move. 

“This was a total surprise to Senate Republican leadership, to the two leaders of the Armed Services Committee and, clearly, to the secretary of the Navy himself,” the senator said. 

Senators on the committee privately expressed concern to JI over Phelan’s firing, which comes amid as the U.S. is maintaining a naval blockade of Iranian ports and has begun boarding Iranian-linked tankers around the world, with three U.S. aircraft carriers on station or en route to the Middle East.

“I mean, I’m sure there are going to be some questions asked about the reasons, etc.,” Thune told JI. “But hopefully the authorizing committee will get a briefing and be informed about some of these decisions.”

Prior to his role at the Defense Department, Phelan ran an investment firm and was a major fundraiser for President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Phelan and other administration officials had reportedly been clashing over how best to grow the U.S. shipbuilding industry, a longtime challenge, though Phelan has heralded his own close relationship with Trump. 

Hegseth’s term has also been marked by ongoing friction with other senior officials in the department, including Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, and the firings of multiple top officials. Hegseth fired Army chief of staff Gen. Randy George earlier in April.

Phelan is being replaced by Under Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao, a former House and Senate candidate in Virginia.

U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack faced fresh condemnation from two Senate Republicans and conservative influencers for a series of comments he made at the Antalya Diplomacy Forum in Turkey this weekend in which he repeatedly criticized Israel and praised Ankara.

The U.S. envoy has faced criticism and scrutiny from fellow Republicans previously for his perceived closeness with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his government, comments critical of Israel and more.

In response to comments by Barrack claiming that the current ceasefire in Lebanon “is so delicate because everybody has been equally untrustworthy” — referring to both Israel and Hezbollah — Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said he “respectfully and strongly disagree[s].”

Barrack said at the conference there needs to be “a path with Hezbollah, and that path has to be not killing Hezbollah” — a group that the U.S. has long designated as a terrorist organization and has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans. He further said that Iran and Hezbollah both should be involved in talks to end the fighting in Lebanon.

“I always get in trouble because Hezbollah, in American parlance, and most of the West, is a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Hezbollah, in Lebanon, is also a political organization,” Barrack added.

The ambassador repeatedly criticized provisions in past ceasefire agreements that allowed Israel to take action against Hezbollah in its own self-defense, which he argued made the agreements weak and functionally nonbinding on Israel. He further dismissed the idea that the Lebanese Armed Forces would act to disarm Hezbollah, as is required under the terms of the current and past ceasefires.

“The majority of the Lebanese Armed Forces are not going to go shoot their cousins, especially at a time where Israel is bombarding them, which only gives efficacy to the reason Hezbollah should exist, to protect itself from Israel. So what’s the answer? The answer has got to be underlying prosperity,” Barrack said. “When you have a sovereign nation like Iran, which is supporting a militia, you cannot get rid of that militia by killing them.”

He said he believes that bringing Lebanon into the Abraham Accords, and working closely with Turkey, is the long-term answer to addressing Hezbollah.

“The brilliance of [the ceasefire agreement] is it stopped senseless killing and President [Donald] Trump and Secretary [of State Marco] Rubio stepping in strongly with Israel and saying, ‘We need a timeout,’” Barrack continued. “Everybody is in atrophy over this idiotic war. So will the ceasefire stick? What will we do? It’s baby steps. Everybody’s rushing to fill in those pieces.”

Barrack also criticized the Israeli government’s posture toward Turkey. “I think this rhetoric is going to go away,” he said, referring to Israel’s view of Turkey as a rising threat and aspiring regional hegemon. “Turkey is not a country to be messed with.”

The ambassador said that, in his personal opinion, “the smartest thing that Israel could do is to entice and embrace Turkey” to join the U.S.-led international stabilization force in Gaza, a prospect that Israel has resoundingly rejected as a result of ongoing Turkish hostility and Ankara’s relationship to Hamas leaders.

Barrack also praised Turkey for refusing to designate Hamas as a terrorist organization and for serving as a mediator with the group. “It could have never happened had they agreed with us that Hamas was a Foreign Terrorist Organization and you have to exclude them,” Barrack said, referring to the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.

Barrack broadly dismissed the notion that antisemitism is a widespread problem in the Arab world or elsewhere, arguing that he grew up as a “Lebanese Catholic in a very Jewish neighborhood, everybody’s done business with Jews — that’s not the issue. Zionism was a question as to a definition.”

Barrack said that he and Trump believe that Turkey should be accepted into the F-35 fighter jet program — downplaying Ankara’s decision to buy a Russian S-400 missile-defense system, which led to U.S. sanctions that still prevent Turkey from rejoining the F-35 program. He also brushed off the long-running Turkish provocations against Greece.

“Sanctions, again, in my humble opinion — they don’t work, because what happens is the sanctioned country, they become so smart, so ingenious, that they figure out ways around the sanctions and alliances with other nations that don’t serve the U.S. benefit,” Barrack said, celebrating efforts by the Trump administration to ease sanctions on Turkey.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) responded on X that he remains committed to blocking Turkey from receiving the F-35 or other U.S. defense systems.

“Turkey, the country that funds Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, hates Israel, loves Russia and Iran … good luck getting the F35, F16, and any other American made defense platform,” Scott said. “I told Erdoğan in 2018 and I tell him again: you’re NOT getting the F35.”

Conservative commentator Mark Levin, who has repeatedly criticized Barrack, said that the ambassador “sounds like an Erdogan mouthpiece.”

“Will somebody give this wrecking ball Barrack the hook. He’s THE worst,” Levin said in another X post, and called Barrack “poison” and “awful” in other posts.

Barrack was critical of Israel’s interventions in Syria, which Israel has said were an effort to protect Druze minorities from ongoing atrocities by government-aligned forces. He suggested Israel was not legitimately concerned with protecting the Druze and said that Syria was “brilliant” for not engaging against Israel’s “constant” incursions.

He repeatedly lavished praise on the new Syrian government, and on the Turkish government for backing it.

“My bet is we’ll get to a non-aggression and normalization agreement with Syria [and Israel] sooner than Lebanon,” Barrack said.

Barrack additionally declared, repeating past rhetoric that earned criticism from U.S. lawmakers and analysts, that the only system of government that has worked in the Middle East is “powerful leadership regimes — either benevolent monarchies, a kind of monarchial republic,” and that “countries that have put on this cloak of democracy … have failed,” referring to countries that implemented reforms following the Arab Spring.

He said that Israel’s best path forward would be “aligning its interests with the Gulf, with these strong civilizations.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said Tuesday that he’s hopeful that the war in Iran is close to winding down, in advance of a deadline that could require congressional action for the war to continue.

Under the War Powers Act, unilateral military action undertaken by the president without congressional authority is limited to 60 days — with a 30-day extension for draw-down purposes.

Thune emphasized that the administration’s current goal is to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and that Senate Republicans support efforts to isolate the Iranian regime and their economy.

“We get the strait open again — and that’s sort of their last resort. The military effort here has been extraordinarily successful. This is sort of the last dying gasp of this regime, is to try and shut down the strait,” Thune said in a press conference after a GOP conference meeting. “The administration is making an effort to ensure that it’s open, that there’ll be traffic in and out there. And hopefully that will be successful and we can begin to see this thing wind down.”

Pressed on whether Republicans would be open to voting to continue the war if it extends beyond 90 days, Thune suggested that wouldn’t be necessary.

“At this point, most of us, I believe, feel pretty good about what the American military has achieved there in terms of its objectives,” Thune said. “It’s a hypothetical down the road. … I think the administration has a clear objective, a clear plan, and if they can execute on it, hopefully that question won’t be a necessary one that we’ll have to answer.”

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) said that it’s “not quite time” yet for a full Senate discussion on the war, but said that he does want to see the administration more fully lay out its strategy and plan as the war continues and approaches the 60-day deadline at the end of April.

“We do expect that the administration will be laying out their plan for after the end of seven, eight, nine weeks,” Rounds said. “We have to know what the next steps are, and that’s part of our due diligence that we have to do.”

Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) said that Republicans did not discuss the possibility of an authorization for the war during their meeting.

Other Republicans have argued that the provision of the War Powers Act that sets out the 60-day deadline, is not enforceable and that Republicans on Capitol Hill are not paying attention to it.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that the U.S. should “finish the job” rather than extending a ceasefire agreement with Iran if the regime is not willing to agree to U.S. demands, including a permanent end to nuclear enrichment, surrendering all of its already enriched uranium, fully reopening the strait and abandoning its ballistic missile program and support for terrorism.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said that Senate Democrats plan to bring forward another war powers resolution to stop the war on Wednesday, and will continue to force votes on similar resolutions weekly until the war ends. For now, most Republicans seem likely to continue to vote against the legislation.

Senate Republicans also indicated that they’re not likely to attempt to include supplemental funding for the Iran war in an upcoming partisan budget reconciliation package, which is focused on border security and immigration funding currently being blocked by Democrats.

Thune, who has said he wants an “anorexic-like” reconciliation package, again indicated on Tuesday at a press conference after a Senate Republican lunch meeting that the package will be tightly “focused” to fund immigration enforcement.

“I think we’re going to do a very skinny reconciliation,” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said when asked about Republicans’ discussions on Iran during the conference meeting.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) said that he has not heard anything about either the timing or the size of the supplemental request the administration plans to submit. Initial reports indicated that the Pentagon wanted to ask for $200 billion, but more recent reports have indicated that the final request will be lower.

Republicans have discussed advancing another reconciliation package before the end of the year, though some members of the conference, like Kennedy, have openly expressed skepticism that such an effort would be possible.

At this point, given the strong and widespread opposition among Democrats to the war in Iran, it’s unclear whether a funding package for the war would be able to clear the 60-vote filibuster threshold necessary for passage in the Senate.

Senate Republicans maintained the position on Monday that Iran should never be allowed to possess nuclear enrichment capacity, following reports that the administration had proposed a 20-year pause in enrichment — rather than a permanent end to Iran’s enrichment capacity — as part of peace talks in Islamabad over the weekend.

Last year, during diplomatic talks with the regime prior to the U.S. strikes on the Iranian nuclear program, all but one Senate Republican signed a letter arguing that Iran should never have enrichment capacity, a position echoed by a vast majority of House Republicans. The New York Times reported Monday that Iran agreed to halt enrichment for just five years.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who has been a vocal proponent of the war in Iran but has also defended the Trump administration’s diplomatic efforts, said on X that a 20-year pause to Iranian enrichment would not be sufficient.

“If this reporting is accurate, the idea that we would agree to a moratorium on enrichment rather than a ban on enrichment would be a mistake in my view,” Graham said on X. “Would we agree to a moratorium for al Qaeda to enrich? No. The only difference between al Qaeda and the Iranian regime is that one is a Sunni terrorist organization and the other is a Shia terrorist state.”

He said that Iran cannot be trusted and that the U.S. must hold firm to a standard of zero enrichment.

Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE), a co-lead of the letter last year, told Jewish Insider that he hadn’t seen the reports about the administration’s negotiating position and declined to comment on it specifically, but said more broadly that he does not believe that Iran has any legitimate need for enrichment.

“There’s no civilian reason for Iran to have an enrichment program,” Ricketts said. “They’re getting their uranium right now for their civilian program from Russia, and the fact that they have admitted they’ve enriched uranium to near bomb-grade potential demonstrates that this is for nuclear weapon production, not civilian use.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said that Iran can’t be trusted to “stick with anything they agree to, so you have to understand that going into it.”

“But I agree with the president: no enrichment, no nuclear weapons and open up the Strait of Hormuz.”

Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC) said that “the preference is no enrichment.”

“Iran can never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Bottom line, end of story,” Budd said. “The 20-year pause — is that a strategic component to a greater negotiation? I can understand that. … Do they have civilian nuclear power as part of that? Can they be trusted with this current regime? I don’t think so. But again, I’m going to give a lot of leeway to the administration who wants to end nuclear capability for Iran.”

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) also said he has not seen the reports, but that “it should be a forever” prohibition on Iranian nuclear enrichment.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that Republicans are set to discuss on Tuesday the best way to approve a supplemental funding request for the war and the proper size of the supplemental package.

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) told reporters that he thinks the Iran war funding should be folded into the upcoming reconciliation package — focused on immigration and border security matters — while others maintain it should be a stand-alone bill. Including the Iran funding could make passing the reconciliation package in the House more difficult.

Wicker said, “it’s a matter of vote-counting, largely.”

There are also some apparent disagreements between Republicans about what should happen if the war extends past the 60-day timeline for unilateral executive military action laid out in the War Powers Act.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) said that the War Powers Act deadline may be unconstitutional or unenforceable, but said “there’s nobody walking around here in the Senate going, ‘How many days do we have left?’ Nobody’s paying attention.”

But Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) told reporters, “I’m sure we’ll have some sort of a vote or a statement at that [60-day] point.” 

Other Republican senators are taking a firmer stance, rejecting any war operations beyond 60 days without congressional approval.

“Here in America, constitutional limits are in place to temper the president from unilateral authority. I support the president’s actions taken in defense of American lives and interests,” Sen. John Curtis (R-UT) said in a recent op-ed. “However, I will not support ongoing military action beyond a 60-day window without congressional approval.”

And Curtis said he would not support any supplemental funding for the war without congressional authorization.

A group of Senate Republicans is urging Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel to provide a congressional briefing on the “progress and future priorities” of the joint task force established in the aftermath of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terror attacks, which is responsible for investigating and prosecuting Hamas members and other actors involved in funding, supporting or perpetrating the attacks. 

The request, sent in a letter to the two Cabinet members on Thursday, was signed by Sens. Jerry Moran (R-KS), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Ashley Moody (R-FL), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Steve Daines (R-MT), Ted Budd (R-NC), Katie Britt (R-AL), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), James Risch (R-ID), John Hoeven (R-ND), Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV).

“The events of October 7 underscored the ongoing and evolving nature of the global terrorist threat and the risks it poses to the United States, our allies, and our national security,” the letter states. “In recent weeks, a series of violent incidents and terror attacks with antisemitic motivations or links to extremist rhetoric, both abroad and here at home, have further reinforced the urgency of this work.”

The letter noted that while recent incidents “may not be directly connected to one another or to October 7,” they reflect a “broadening threat environment.” 

“The [Joint Task Force] serves an important role in targeting the areas where the United States has the greatest leverage: cutting off financing, disrupting logistical networks, enforcing legal accountability, and coordinating with international partners,” the letter states. “Although Hamas operates primarily overseas, it depends on transnational networks for funding, propaganda, and legitimacy, all of which intersect with U.S. financial systems and jurisdictions.”

“Through coordinated prosecutions, asset seizures, and intelligence sharing, the task force can directly degrade the operational capacity of Hamas and other terrorist networks and discourage future assistance,” the letter continues.  

It requests “additional information regarding the number of individuals held accountable to date, the number of investigations currently underway, and any recommendations the task force may have for congressional action.” 

The letter highlights the achievements of the task force since its inception in March 2025, including its work in identifying Mahmoud Amin Ya’qub Al-Muhtadi, a Gazan native who was residing in Lafayette, La., as having been involved in the Oct. 7 attacks, ultimately leading to his arrest.

The letter also comes amid reports that despite initial enthusiasm for the group within the Justice Department, the task force has since lost a number of its resources, with several of its members having been either fired or reassigned.  

“We are encouraged by the task force’s focus on identifying terrorist support networks, monitoring potential domestic radicalization, and holding those who provide aid or resources to extremist organizations accountable under U.S. law,” the lawmakers wrote. “The effort to support regional stability and pursue accountability for those responsible reflects the strong attention with which this Administration has approached the aftermath of that attack.” 

Several Senate Republicans this week declined to fully endorse President Donald Trump’s comments that the U.S. had “won” the war in Iran, arguing that there is still more to be done to fully degrade Iran’s capabilities to the extent necessary.

Trump told reporters in the Oval Office Tuesday, “You know, I don’t like to say this — this war has been won. The only one that likes to keep it going is the fake news. … We’ve won this war.” Trump also said Monday he would postpone strikes on Iran’s energy infrastructure to allow for “productive conversations” toward ending the war — an announcement that boosted markets and brought down oil prices.

“I think we’re not done. I don’t like calling it ‘won’ until it’s done,” Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) told Jewish Insider. “You can’t stop a war too soon, once it gets started, because then you’ve got to get right back to it again. You’ve got to finish it.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said he agreed with the president, but added, “we’ve done a good job of accomplishing our military objectives. We’re not quite there yet.”

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) said, “I think what he means by that — and he happens to be correct — we have basically significantly reduced their ability to wage a lot of the … war. It doesn’t mean they’re not dangerous yet, but we’re getting there.”

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, quipped of Trump’s comments, “I think that’s probably hyperbole. It’d be the first time ever, but I think it may be hyperbole.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) hewed more closely to the president’s comments, while stopping short of declaring the war over. “Operation Epic Fury is almost done. I mean, I think the mission that was very clearly defined in the beginning, the objectives have been met,” Johnson told reporters on Wednesday.

Graham, one of the most vocal supporters of the war on Capitol Hill, who has been agitating for the U.S. to pursue full regime change in Iran, said that he would support — and even prefer — a diplomatic outcome.

“Not only do I support @POTUS and his team’s efforts to negotiate with Iran to find a solution to the threats this regime presents to the region and the world, I encourage it,” Graham said on X on Wednesday. “It is the outcome I seek, not the method. I have confidence in President Trump’s negotiating team to make sure that any deal would meet the military objectives laid out early on.”

Those goals, as articulated by Graham, are ending Iran’s ballistic missile program, support for terrorism and nuclear ambitions.

“If diplomacy can achieve these objectives, I would not only support it, but I would also prefer it because war literally is hell,” Graham continued.

Other Republicans are also backing the diplomatic push. Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) told JI that the president would have better information on the U.S.’ progress toward its goals, but said that from what he has seen, the administration has “made a lot of progress.”

He also expressed support for the administration’s negotiations with Iran about ending the war.

“You always hope war ends,” Scott said. “I hope we’ve fulfilled our mission to destroy their ability to produce nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.”

“The administration has been very clear that they are about degrading Iran’s missile capabilities, launchers, production facilities, stockpiles, taking out their navy and their nuclear facilities,” Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) told JI. “When they reach a sufficient point, that’s when it’s time to cease the shooting, and hopefully someday the Iranian people will throw off the tyrants that rule them, and we can get a better administration.”

Multiple Senate Republicans said Tuesday that they haven’t heard from the administration specific plans for restoring free trade through the Strait of Hormuz, though most emphasized that doing so is a critical goal.

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) said that the Pentagon has been planning for this contingency for years.

“I can just tell you, the Pentagon has, for years, been playing out their plans,” Rounds told Jewish Insider. “The question is which plan is next, and that’s based on conditions — the same thing with Kharg Island,” he said, referring to potential U.S. military operations against the Iranian regime’s primary petroleum export hub. “I’m sure that when the time comes, we’ll all know.”

Rounds said he’s confident the administration has “multiple plans” for Kharg Island as well. The administration has reportedly been considering invading or blockading the island to force the regime to lift its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. President Donald Trump previously threatened to destroy the energy facilities on Kharg Island if the blockade continues.

The Strait of Hormuz “has to” be reopened, “but no, I have not heard from them on the ‘how’ and the ‘what’ — how they’re trying to be able to accomplish that,” Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) said. “This has been Iran’s trick for decades, right? When they get mad, they close the Strait of Hormuz. They just hang that over everybody’s head all the time.”

He suggested that any solution to the current blockade should also aim to prevent similar occurrences in the future.

“[However] this is resolved, you can’t have a future of terrorism in the region,” Lankford said. “You can’t have this constant on-and-off of the Strait of Hormuz, and you can’t have a nuclear weapon.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said of the U.S. military, “they’re certainly sending a lot of assets there to do that, so I hope they’re successful.”

Cornyn also characterized the waiver of some U.S. sanctions on Iranian and Russian oil as “temporary disruptions,” which he hopes will be restored once the strait is reopened. 

One Republican senator, however, argued that the onus is not on the United States to reopen the strait, despite the closure’s impact on global oil prices.

“The way I look at it, the countries that need to get it open — they’re the ones who should do it,” Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) said. “We’re energy independent. So the countries that need [to get] product out of there — they ought to figure out how to get it open. I don’t think it’s our responsibility.” Trump has made similar comments about leaving responsibility over the strait to countries that utilize it most, which are primarily Gulf states.

Lankford and Cornyn both said they disagreed with the idea that the U.S. should leave others to handle obstacles to commerce in the strait.

Lankford said he has a “very different view” on the issue, emphasizing that there are hundreds of thousands of Americans living and working in the region.

“America stands with Americans, wherever they stand, so we’ve got to be able to fix that,” Lankford said. “Iran, for 47 years, has performed acts of terrorism on Americans that live in the area. They’ve got to stop that. And the Strait of Hormuz — they can constantly adjust oil prices … based on them opening and closing it. You can’t do that. We don’t let Somali pirates take our ships, we don’t let the Houthis stop international traffic and we don’t let the Iranians shut off the Strait of Hormuz.”

Cornyn highlighted the global economic impacts of the strait’s closure.

“It impacts, obviously, worldwide commodity prices, but it affects our country as well, given the impact on the gas prices,” Cornyn said.

Democrats, meanwhile, have accused the administration of failing to properly plan for the likelihood that Iran would close the strait in advance of the war.

“We’ve known for 80 years that that was a vulnerability to the entire [world],” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) said. “Did you think about it? Did you not think about it? If you thought about it, did you just assume Iran wouldn’t do it? I mean, it’s amateur hour.”

For the third time in a month, Senate Republicans on Tuesday evening blocked an effort by Democrats to halt U.S. operations in Iran.

The war powers resolution, this time led by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), is part of a series of efforts by Senate Democrats to disrupt business on the Senate floor to force a reckoning and public testimony by Cabinet officials about the war in Iran.

Democrats have four other such resolutions filed, which they could call up for votes at a time of their choosing, using special procedures allowing lawmakers to force votes on war powers resolutions.

The Senate again rejected the resolution 53-47, with Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) once again voting in favor of the war effort and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) again voting against it.

The mostly party-line vote comes in spite of recent comments by some Senate Republicans pushing for the war to come to an end.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), another leader of the Democratic war powers push, said that the group plans to continue to force weekly votes on the issue. He acknowledged before the vote that the results might not change this week, but suggested that some Republican colleagues might be won over if the war continues to drag on, troops are sent to invade Iran or oil prices continue to spike.

Kaine indicated that he was not encouraged by President Donald Trump’s comments that he considered the U.S. to have “won” the war in Iran or his recent claims of engaging in productive talks with the regime.

“If he announces that it’s over, that will be good news,” Kaine told Jewish Insider. “Now, the consequences are not going to be over for a very long time, and Virginians are going to be suffering the consequences of something that lacked a rationale and lacked a plan for a very long time, in all likelihood. But the minute he announces it’s over, that will be positive — if he doesn’t change his mind, but he could change his mind.”

The House is expected to vote this week on a similar measure led by Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY). A separate House measure led by Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and other pro-Israel moderates which would limit the war effort to 30 days — a period which will expire next week — could also come to a vote soon.

At least one House Democrat who voted previously against a war powers resolution and backed the U.S. operations in Iran has said he plans to vote for the Meeks resolution this week.

Some Senate Republicans suggested on Tuesday that Israel’s killing of senior Iranian regime official Ali Larijani could help pave the way toward resistance and uprising by the Iranian people.

“They’re part of a terror state, and whatever they’re doing internally to go after their own people is something that none of us should simply stand by,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) told Jewish Insider. “They’ve been a part of it for a long time. At some stage of the game, the people there will have had enough. We just want to make sure that this regime is weakened enough to where, when the people of Iran decide that they want a change in leadership, that it is a possibility of success for them.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who has been a vocal advocate for regime change in Iran, said that Larijani’s death will further weaken the Islamic Republic.

“The killing of notorious security chief, Ali Larijani, is the biggest blow to the regime since the death of the ayatollah,” Graham said on X. “Larijani was truly one of the key leaders of the regime’s security apparatus that is being used to terrorize the people of Iran and the region. His demise puts further pressure on the regime as they continue to lose their first and second layer of leadership. This was an amazing military operation by all those involved. Well done.”

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) described Larijani’s death as a necessary action to protect Americans.

“As much as you hate to see death, in this case, these are individuals trying to kill Americans. So unfortunately it’s what has to be done,” Scott told JI.

On the Democratic side, two pro-Israel Democrats said that while they’re critical of the Trump administration’s decision to enter the war without congressional authority, they’re not shedding tears for Larijani.

“Iran’s number one export is terror, whether it’s ISIS, Hamas, the Houthis — go ahead and name them all,” Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) told JI. “No one is sad because what they’ve done — not only to their own people but to people in the region and around the world — is unconscionable. So I’m not sad about that.”

“But,” she continued, “before we put any more Americans in harm’s way, it is the president’s constitutional duty to come to Congress.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said that Larijani “had a lot of blood on his hands, and he was a highly appropriate target for Israel,” though he criticized the U.S.’ decision-making in entering the war.

Both of Missouri’s Republican senators, Josh Hawley and Eric Schmitt, argued that the administration seems to have largely achieved its key objectives for the war in Iran — a posture that distinguishes him from most GOP colleagues and highlights subtle but emerging divisions among Republicans on the proper scope and duration of the war.

Pointing to comments by President Donald Trump saying that the war was substantially complete and that the U.S. had achieved its objectives, Hawley said on Fox News earlier this week, “I agree with what the president said last night. You look at all the success that we’ve had in the last 10 days. I mean, this thing is a victory. I think we should be hailing our military. We ought to be saying we’ve achieved our objectives here. … If this isn’t success, I don’t know what would be. … Now it’s time to declare victory.”

He also posited that Iran has nothing remaining with which to reconstitute its nuclear program — though the regime maintains a stockpile of enriched nuclear material which many experts argue cannot be fully secured without some form of on-the-ground presence.

Continuing a trend of making contradictory comments on the war’s timeline, Trump had said the same day that the U.S. could and would go much further in Iran, and that the U.S.’ aims could expand significantly.

Asked by Jewish Insider on Thursday about the metrics by which he was judging the success of the war, Hawley — who is one of the more prominent senators from the populist wing of the GOP — said he was referring to Trump’s own comments on the subject.

“I assume our overriding national security objective when it comes to Iran is to prevent them from getting nukes. And between our bombing last June and in the last … 12 days, I don’t know how they’re going to reconstitute their nuclear program anytime in, maybe, our lifetimes,” Hawley said.

“Our military has done an amazing job. I think it’s been an overwhelming display of force,” Hawley continued. “I know my Democrat colleagues, a bunch of them are saying, ‘This has accomplished nothing, nothing’s happened.’ It seems to me a lot has happened. And I think we should say that’s a good thing.”

Pressed on whether the war can be ended while Iran continues to fire missiles and drones at countries throughout the Middle East and is dropping mines in the Strait of Hormuz, Hawley said he would defer to Trump’s judgement on when to end the war.

“My point is just that I think the military has achieved a tremendous amount. It has ended [Iran’s] nuclear program for all intents and purposes. It has destroyed their navy. It has eliminated most of their ballistic missiles — those are good things,” he continued. “I’d be glad to take that [win].”

“Seems pretty good to me,” Hawley added.

Schmitt, who is also aligned with the populist wing of the party, likewise emphasized the progress the U.S. has made and pushed for a quick conclusion to the war.

“I know they’re way ahead of schedule. I’d look for a swift end to it,” Schmitt told JI. “I’m not interested in forever war in the Middle East, I don’t think the president is either. And I think that, again, they’ve laid out clear objectives and [are] making a lot of progress.”

Other Republicans are taking a distinctly different approach. Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) told reporters on Thursday that “victory isn’t determined by declaration, it’s determined by the outcome.” He argued that the U.S. can’t and shouldn’t end the war prematurely.

“If you pull 90% of the weeds of our garden and you leave 10%, you’re going to have a weedy garden,” Cramer continued. “The last 10% are the hardest, in many cases.”

The North Dakota senator, who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, expressed surprise that the U.S. had not been better prepared to secure the Strait of Hormuz, calling it a potential “miscalculation” and saying that the attacks on ships in the critical waterway “could have been avoided.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), one of the most vocal supporters of the Iran war on Capitol Hill, said that he thinks there are “weeks more of this coming.”

“I don’t see this conflict ending today. I think the mission is to make sure they cannot regenerate, that they’re going to be beyond capable of building missiles to hit us, and they’ll never go back to the nuclear business,” Graham continued.

Also on Thursday, in a rare Senate floor speech, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), emphasized that the war against Iran cannot be decoupled from the global axis, including Russia and China, with which Iran is aligned. 

Russia, McConnell emphasized, has reportedly been providing Iran with targeting intelligence. He criticized Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, who said earlier this week that he takes Russia at its word that it has not been doing that. 

“I’ve warned successive presidents to take the Russian-Iranian axis, actually, more seriously,” McConnell said. He emphasized the supportive role that Ukraine has taken in helping to protect the U.S.’ allies in the Gulf, and criticized administration officials for not moving more quickly in pre-war discussions to acquire Ukrainian anti-drone technology.

He also urged lawmakers who oppose the war to nonetheless support an expected request for supplemental military funding as “an overdue opportunity to invest in urgent and strategic defense priorities.”

Following a classified briefing on Tuesday, Senate Republicans strongly rejected claims that Israel had effectively forced the U.S.’ hand into war with Iran or dictated the timeline of the conflict, claims that were fueled by comments on Monday by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and top lawmakers who were briefed on the Trump administration’s plans.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) told Jewish Insider he had been in touch with the administration since the war began, and that no one in the administration had told him that Israel had triggered the U.S. to act.

“Anybody that thinks they’re going to get President Trump to do anything — talk to anybody that’s done business with him for his entire business career,” Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) told JI, calling the idea that Israel had forced Trump’s hand “a joke.”

Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) added, ”We work very closely with our ally Israel for maximum effect to take out Iran’s capabilities when they are the weakest so we minimize the risk to our military and civilians in the region.”

Democrats also distanced themselves from the narrative that emerged on Monday.

Asked whether Israel had prompted the start of hostilities, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who was also briefed on Monday, told JI, “No one wants an endless war, but we certainly don’t want a nuclear Iran, that’s for sure.”

Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) said that the responsibility for the operation “always falls squarely on President Trump. Regardless of what other countries are doing, he is the one that owns this.”

“Look, I certainly have my concerns about how this all unfolded, but I think it’s very important for the American people to know that this was still Donald Trump’s decision,” Kim continued.

Other Democrats framed the narrative as one of several shifting explanations the administration has offered.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) said that the administration “jump[s] around until they think they found an explanation that could satisfy the most people. They have changed their justification for this time and time again, and we got nothing that even approached a justifiable reason for the president to commit an act of war.”

Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also said that placing responsibility with Israel was one of just several shifting rationales. “Each day, sometimes twice a day, the rationale for doing this changes. That tells me it is not serious.”

Other Democrats, however, said that the timing of the onset of hostilities was impacted by Israel’s plans.

“The way we got into this war, I think, put the principal decision in another country’s hands, rather than ours, and did not lead to preparations in advance of the war starting that protected as many Americans as possible,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) said.

Democrats supporting the war powers resolution set to come up for a vote in the Senate on Wednesday — which mandates the withdrawal of U.S. forces from combat with Iran — argued on Tuesday that the resolution would nevertheless allow some sort of wind-down of U.S. operations, as U.S. bases and embassies come under fire by Iran, though they did not offer specifics.

“I think they’d be allowed to conduct the completion of the operation,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) said.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA), a cosponsor of the war powers resolution, said, “It would require an end to the use of force. I’m sure it would permit the safe drawdown of our forces in the region, but it would insist on the president coming to Congress to seek an authorization, to make the case — if indeed he believes there’s a case to be made.”

Though the resolution “terminate[s] the use of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military,” Meeks said that the resolution “does not say that the president has to move everybody out.” 

“It says, though, that he has to come and talk to us and tell us what the end game, what the beginning game is. We just cannot get involved in the hostilities, as of right now,” Meeks told JI. “Israel will do what it’s doing, I would imagine. But the American people need to know where their members of Congress stand.” He’s supporting a similar resolution in the House.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), the lead sponsor of the war powers resolution, said that if it fails as expected, he can and may continue re-filing the resolution as the war continues, and as casualties and disruptions mount. He said that Democrats are also contemplating other measures, such as using the appropriations process or amendments to other legislation, to force lawmakers to vote on the war.

Several Democrats also said Congress should vote on an authorization for use of military force, in addition to the war powers resolution. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) said that Senate Democrats should refuse to provide votes on any legislation until such a vote occurs.

Meeks said he expects that the conflict will still be ongoing in 60 days, the end of the period in which the administration is legally allowed to conduct unilateral operations without congressional authorization.

Lawmakers offered differing views on whether American ground operations inside Iran are likely.

Scott said that the U.S. shouldn’t take a ground invasion off the table but he was hopeful that the mission could be accomplished through airstrikes.

“You never take that off the table. That would be stupid. That’s what Obama did, and that’s what Biden did. We’d never do that,” Scott said. He said he did not think congressional authorization would be needed to send in troops on the ground, which others see as a significant escalation.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) said that Trump “hasn’t ruled it out, but I’d urge him to rule it out” and said that a congressional authorization would, in his view, be necessary to put boots on the ground.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said his takeaway from the briefing is that U.S. ground forces “may be necessary to accomplish objectives that the administration seems to have.”

Trump reportedly spoke this weekend to Kurdish leaders about potentially launching an offensive against the Iranian regime, but Kim said that the subject did not come up in the briefing.

“You wouldn’t be having those conversations if you weren’t thinking about maybe getting different actors on the ground,” Kim told JI. “It very much feels like they are fomenting, potentially, different groups on the ground to start to get engaged in what will essentially be what happened in Syria before, what happened in Libya before. And so if they are trying to start a civil war, this is a very good way to go about it.”

Senators, particularly Democrats, also said after the briefing that Cabinet officials told them to expect stronger strikes going forward, and that the past few days have been the beginning of a much longer operation.

“This is the most significant military action this country has taken since the Iraq war. … They told us in there that this is an open-ended operation that hasn’t even really started in earnest yet,” Murphy said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that he believes the U.S. coalition against Iran is expanding, making the “demise of the regime far more likely” every day, adding, “Stay tuned … the liberation of Iran is at hand. The gateway to peace is about to open.” He predicted that normalization between Israel and additional Arab countries would be forthcoming. 

Coons warned that the U.S. should be “careful” about how it addresses Iranian dissidents, emphasizing there was no plan he was aware of to send assistance, troops or arms to allow them to defend themselves from the Iranian security apparatus, which he said remains fully capable of repressing civilians. He said he’s “heard nothing that suggests” that enough of the regime has been eliminated to allow for a mass uprising. 

Kim said that he is “very concerned” about the U.S.’ stockpiles of air defense interceptors, and “did not get a satisfactory answer,” though some Republicans said they believed U.S. munitions supplies are sufficient.

Kim said he believes that the interceptor stockpiles for both the U.S. and its Arab allies will be a “determining factor for the length of this war, as well as whether other countries are getting involved.”

Facing concerns from Senate Republicans over her agency’s preparedness, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Tuesday defended the department’s ability to respond against potential Iranian sleeper-cell threats as the Department of Homeland Security remains unfunded and under a partial shutdown amid an escalating conflict with Tehran. 

“We work every single day with our intelligence agencies and law enforcement partners to make sure that we are investigating and finding any threats to the homeland here within our borders,” Noem said at an oversight hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Not only that — we are revetting some of the individuals and some of the programs that we may have concerns about, looking at social media, also going through those interviews that are necessary for some of our programs that the Biden administration abused and perverted under their time there as well.”

“We don’t necessarily know who all came into our country,” Noem added. “We know that we have many dangerous individuals that came in unvetted, and we are working every single day to find them and to make sure that we’re preventing the next attack and preventing the next crime perpetrated against the American people.” 

The hearing unfolded as DHS has continued to operate without full appropriations since Feb. 14, after lawmakers failed to reach a funding deal, largely over disagreements about the Trump administration’s immigration strategy. 

Congressional Republicans have warned that the DHS shutdown poses a national security risk and impacts the agency’s ability to conduct counterterrorism and domestic security operations against Iranian-backed threats at a crucial moment of conflict. 

Those concerns intensified over the weekend after a shooting in Austin, Texas, left three people dead and 13 wounded. Authorities said a Senegalese man opened fire inside a bar while wearing a hoodie that read “property of Allah.” According to reports, investigators later found photos of Iranian leaders at his residence. 

“I wonder how many people are like that here, waiting to pounce, and DHS doesn’t have appropriated funds,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) during the hearing, referring to the incident in Texas. “This is insane. There are more people like this.” 

Asked by Graham whether the threat level from “radical Islamist terrorists” is increased amid the ongoing military confrontation with Tehran, Noem responded: “Yep.”

Congressional Democrats said Monday they have no plans to end the funding standoff, but that they are willing to fund DHS agencies that do not handle immigration enforcement. However, Republicans have largely opposed splitting up DHS funding. 

“Can we not understand America is under siege, now likely to be attacked because radical Islam is under siege and they’re going to hit back and we’re sitting here looking at each other and not funding DHS?” said Graham. 

Multiple Senate Republicans voiced support for President Donald Trump’s threat that the U.S. would intervene directly should the Iranian regime escalate its crackdown on the protests sweeping Iran — which appears to have already begun.

Trump warned in a post on his Truth Social platform last Friday that if Iran shoots “and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue. We are locked and loaded and ready to go.”

The president renewed that threat on Thursday on “The Hugh Hewitt Show,” saying, “If they start killing people, which they tend to do during their riots, they have lots of riots. If they do it, we’re going to hit them very hard.” But on Fox News’s “Hannity,” he said that “for the most part” the regime has not engaged in mass killings of protesters.

Asked on Thursday about the possibility of the U.S. helping the Iranian protesters, Vice President JD Vance expressed his support for the protesters but said he’d defer to Trump on what actions they would take. He also said the U.S. remains open to a “real negotiation” with Iran on its nuclear program.

“I’ll let the president speak to what we’re going to do in the future, but we certainly stand with anybody across the world, including the Iranian people, who are advocating for their rights,” he added.

Trump’s threat has been largely well-received by GOP lawmakers, but lawmakers from both parties have expressed support for the protesters generally. 

“To the people of Iran: We stand with you tonight,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told Fox News on Tuesday evening. “We stand for you taking back your country from the ayatollah, a religious Nazi who kills you and terrorizes the world,” he said, referring to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei “We pray for you. We support you. Donald J. Trump is not Barack Obama. He has your back. … Help is on the way.”

“And to the ayatollah: You need to understand, if you keep killing your people who are demanding a better life, Donald J. Trump is gonna kill you. Change is coming to Iran. It’ll be the biggest change in the history of the Mideast to get rid of this Nazi regime.”

“President Trump has been very clear: If the ayatollah harms the protesters, the consequences would be catastrophically painful,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) told Jewish Insider. “The regime should understand that the president is deadly serious and will enjoy strong support in Congress.”

Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) told JI that “what the president said … [is] one of the things that we can do to help protect the Iranians who are protesting.”

Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) told JI that the U.S. should act “in any possible way to support the Iranian protesters” and said he’d back any efforts in Congress to do so. 

“That’s the real truth to power. They started to kill people there. Remember, they are now so desperate. They’re trying to offer people $7 a month. They’re that desperate,” Fetterman said. “How courageous those protesters are — and that’s a testament to the opportunities Israel and our strikes created — they inspire me. These are Iranian protesters. That is real courage and real — being willing to either get killed, beaten, tortured or disappeared, that’s what happens in true autocracies.”

Other senators spoke more broadly about offering U.S. support for the protesters without addressing direct intervention. 

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) noted that lawmakers haven’t engaged extensively about ways for Congress to support the protesters since returning from the holiday recess on Monday, but said it was important for them to express their support. “I’m open to any ideas. I think there’s been very little talk [among lawmakers] in specific terms,” Blumenthal told JI.

“We should speak out and support them in spirit,” Blumenthal said. “I don’t know how much we can do, practically speaking. I know the president has talked about some kind of measures if anyone is killed. I don’t know exactly what he has in mind, but we ought to be supporting the freedom fighters and brave protesters in any way we can.”

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) said that the “biggest thing that we can do is actually have public officials speak out that our problem with Iran is not the people of Iran, it’s the Iranian regime. Our problem is the same problem the people of Iran have.”

“The regime oppresses them, prevents them from actually being [as] successful as they could be. The people of Iran [are] extremely well educated, extremely sharp people [and] could be a lot more prosperous than they are, but they’re trapped behind a regime that’s obsessed with terrorism, and so they’re holding back their entire country so they can fund Hezbollah,” Lankford said. “So people can’t get food, people can’t have a stable currency, because they want to fund terrorism. Until they have an ability to be able to pick new leaders that will actually represent their values, they’re stuck.”

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said it is “wonderful” to see the protests happening and that the U.S. “should support them diplomatically, technologically and in other ways, so that they can communicate.”

“But I think we should be very hesitant about expressing our willingness to use military force in yet another country for yet another reason,” Schiff added.

Other Democrats have also discouraged the use of U.S. military force in response to the protests.

Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) said the U.S. should “continue to show attention” toward Iran, “making sure we’re not just losing track of everything because of Venezuela, and just continuing to show that we want to make sure that the regime doesn’t crack down brutally as they have in the past.”

“I think that that’s an important sign right now, as this is continuing on,” Kim continued.

As the GOP uneasily contends with rising hostility to Israel among younger right-wing voters, Nate Morris, a 45-year-old Republican Senate candidate in Kentucky who is courting the populist right with an anti-establishment message, emphasizes there is at least one long-standing party axiom he will never abandon: unwavering support for the Jewish state.

Morris, the wealthy founder of a successful waste management company who calls himself a “Trump America-First conservative,” said his commitment to upholding a strong U.S.-Israel alliance extends from his alignment with President Donald Trump’s vision for the Middle East.

“I think he’s been the most pro-Israel president we’ve had in our country’s history, and I want to continue that kind of leadership on the issue in the United States Senate, on behalf of Kentucky and the country,” Morris told Jewish Insider in an interview last Friday during the Republican Jewish Coalition’s annual summit in Las Vegas, where he met privately with members to pitch his campaign to succeed retiring Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

Trump, he added, “has gotten it right, and obviously the success speaks for itself.”

But Morris also cited a more personal reason for what he described as his unequivocally pro-Israel worldview, explaining that, as a “proud” evangelical Christian, he has “always believed Israel is the land that was given to the Jews by God.”

“My views on Israel are never going to change,” he pledged. “They’re in my bones. That’s the way I was raised. That’s what my faith teaches me.”

“Look, all our differences here and the different positions that are out there, we’ve got to have more education, we’ve got to have more conversations as a party,” Morris said, without referring to Carlson or Roberts directly. “I want to discuss these things as a party, get on the same page as a party.”

His comments, while hardly unusual in a deeply evangelical state like Kentucky, come at a fraught moment for conservative Christian supporters of Israel, in the immediate wake of Tucker Carlson’s friendly interview with the neo-Nazi streamer Nick Fuentes, a source of sustained criticism throughout the RJC’s three-day summit attended by elected officials, conservative activists, media personalities and other political candidates.

But even as Carlson had expressed his disdain for Christian Zionists, claiming they had been seized by a “brain virus,” Morris was relatively cautious when addressing the interview with Fuentes as well as the backlash toward the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank whose president, Kevin Roberts, has continued to stand behind Carlson.

“Look, all our differences here and the different positions that are out there, we’ve got to have more education, we’ve got to have more conversations as a party,” he said diplomatically, without referring to Carlson or Roberts directly. “I want to discuss these things as a party, get on the same page as a party.”

Morris also stressed that “we shouldn’t be in the business of canceling anyone, but educating them and making sure they understand the full context and what’s at stake here.”

“That’s the way we’re going to win as a party,” he said, “and I think that is what’s going to tamp out any differences that we have and that we shouldn’t be having.”

The hesitance to offer a forthright condemnation speaks not only to Carlson’s strong influence in the MAGA movement but also to how his fan base likely overlaps with the right-wing coalition that Morris is hoping to activate in a competitive primary with two more-established rivals. 

Morris, a friend of Vice President JD Vance who launched his campaign in June, is facing Daniel Cameron, the former state attorney general, and Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY), both of whom are strong supporters of Israel. Morris described the race as a “proxy war between Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump,” as the outgoing senator has become one of the most vocal Republican critics of the president in the upper chamber and frequently warns of growing isolationism in the GOP.

Even as he worked as an intern for McConnell early in his career, Morris, who attended graduate school at the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs as well as Oxford, has sought to tie his rivals to the retiring senator, arguing that Kentucky voters are “ready for change” and that Congress is in need of “new perspectives.”

To underscore his point, Morris noted that Zach Witkoff, the son of Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, recently hosted an event for his Senate campaign, where Morris got the chance to “hear firsthand a lot of the inside details” about how the ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas “came together.”

“What I love about the president is he uses tools of diplomacy, the same tools he uses as a negotiator and as a business leader, and he has applied those to his foreign policy to be able to get things done,” Morris said.

Trump’s approach “shows that when you have outsiders and business people negotiating, you can get great outcomes,” he added. “That’s one of the big reasons why I’m running for the U.S. Senate. I think that we need more people coming from the outside.”

“The thing is, unless you go there and see it, you don’t understand that every day, you don’t know what’s going to happen,” Morris told JI. “You’re under constant threat and potential for assault when you live there and when you’re a citizen of Israel.”

He also called Vance, who encouraged him to run for the open seat, a fellow “outsider” who “wasn’t a career politician” before he launched his own bid for Senate in Ohio just a few years ago. Morris said that they had talked about foreign policy “in the context of” their “general worldview,” but did not elaborate. 

Morris was previously a fundraiser for Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), the libertarian Republican, with whom he traveled to Israel in 2013 on a trip that included evangelical leaders. He said the visit instilled in him a heightened sensitivity to Israel’s ongoing security concerns. (Paul has regularly voted against military aid to Israel and opposed Trump’s attack against Iran’s nuclear program, as part of his overall opposition to foreign aid and military engagement overseas.) 

“The thing is, unless you go there and see it, you don’t understand that every day, you don’t know what’s going to happen,” he told JI. “You’re under constant threat and potential for assault when you live there and when you’re a citizen of Israel.”

The first-time candidate acknowledged waning support for Israel in younger Republican circles, even as he declined to criticize Carlson and others for stoking anti-Israel sentiment on the far right.

He expressed concern about students who posed a series of antisemitic questions to Vance at a recent Turning Point USA campus event, but stopped short of addressing the backlash the vice president subsequently faced for choosing not to challenge the students’ hostile remarks about Jews and Israel. 

While his evangelical faith primarily drives his own support for Israel, Morris said he also believes that “it makes the most sense for the United States,” and skeptical younger conservatives could be persuaded simply on the basis of that argument. “Even looking at it economically,” he said, “I could sell that all day long to any American, to say you’re going to prosper more by this relationship.”

“I think that these are the kind of tools that we can use to get over any hatred, any disagreement — any of the discourse that has been disgusting we’ve seen online,” Morris told JI. “These are the kind of things that can help change hearts and minds.”

The nomination of Amer Ghalib, the mayor of Hamtramck, Mich., to be U.S. ambassador to Kuwait is facing what appear to be insurmountable odds as opposition to his confirmation grows among Senate Republicans.

No Republican or Democratic senators have come to Ghalib’s defense after his performance at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, when he faced a bipartisan grilling over his long record of promoting antisemitic ideas and his embrace of anti-Israel positions as an elected official. 

Senators on both sides of the aisle had privately expressed reservations about Ghalib’s nomination prior to the hearing, but his attempts to evade responsibility for his record while under oath prompted several Republicans on the committee to go public. 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) announced at the end of Ghalib’s hearing last Thursday that he would not be able to support moving his nomination out of committee to the Senate floor. Sens. John Curtis (R-UT), John Cornyn (R-TX) and Dave McCormick (R-PA) have since followed suit. Others on the panel, including Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE), have said they plan to raise their concerns about Ghalib with the committee chairman, Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), and the White House. 

“Based on the hearing that we had last week, I’m going to vote no against him,” McCormick told Punchbowl News on Tuesday. “I don’t think he demonstrated that he’s qualified for the role.”

Asked about Ghalib and the concerns surrounding his nomination while speaking to reporters on Tuesday morning, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said he was “vaguely familiar” with the Hamtramck mayor’s nomination but had not “examined” the matter closely. 

The White House did not respond to Jewish Insider’s multiple requests for comment on the status of Ghalib’s nomination or the growing number of GOP senators coming forward to oppose him. 

Ghalib is not believed to have any support on the Democratic side, reinforced by his lackluster answers to questions about his documented history of antisemitic remarks from Sens. Chris Murphy (D-CT), Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the top Democrat on the committee. He also has an embattled standing within the Democratic Party because of his decision to help President Donald Trump win the state of Michigan for Republicans last November. 

“I think that you have dug your hole deeper today,” Murphy, who already opposed Ghalib prior to last week, told the nominee at his confirmation hearing. 

Fifty Senate Republicans wrote to the foreign ministers of the U.K., France and Germany on Tuesday urging them to hold firm in triggering snapback sanctions on Iran and requesting their cooperation in sanctions enforcement.

“While we back diplomatic efforts to restore Iran’s compliance with its International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) commitments, the international community should not allow hollow gestures and cynical threats from Tehran to stop the snapback process,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter obtained by Jewish Insider. “The regime has abused diplomatic processes for years to avoid penalties. Sanctions relief should only be negotiated after snapback is fully implemented.”

They said that full, verifiable dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program, restoration of International Atomic Energy Agency inspections and the end of Iran’s support for terrorist proxies and its ballistic missile program should be the “minimum” bar for sanctions relief.

The lawmakers, led by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jim Risch (R-ID), said they want to work with the European allies to ensure all United Nations member states and private actors comply with the U.N. sanctions.

“We understand your governments’ hope that diplomacy would eventually succeed in ending Iran’s nuclear program, but after a decade of the regime’s intransigence, its repeated deceptions, and its open support for Putin’s war against Ukraine, we will count on your governments to lead the charge and advance a passionate enforcement of sanctions against Iran — whether at the European Union, in your respective capitals, or in foreign capitals,” the letter continues.

Every Senate Republican — except for Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT), Rand Paul (R-KY) and Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) — signed the letter.

The 50 signatories called on the European governments to work with the U.S. in joint efforts to prevent Iranian “proliferation and acquisition of military, missile, and nuclear goods, technologies, and components” and to “fully shutter Iran’s banking sector abroad,” including all bank branches in Europe.

“Closing off the regime’s financial pathways will curb the regime’s aggression. More pressure is necessary to ultimately bring Iran back to meaningful and serious diplomatic engagement on the full spectrum of its malign activities,” the lawmakers continued.

They also said they are “deeply concerned” about Iran’s oil sales to China and smuggling operations, and said they “appreciate the cooperation your governments have already shown in curbing these sales.”

The lawmakers thanked the E3 allies for triggering the snapback sanctions and their “leadership at this pivotal moment.”

An individual familiar with the situation told JI that Tuberville’s office was not provided with a deadline for signing on to the letter. The individual added that Tuberville has confidence in the Trump administration’s leadership on foreign policy.

Lee and Paul did not respond to requests for comment.

The Israeli strike targeting Hamas leaders in Qatar is dividing the White House, which strongly criticized Israel for attacking Qatari territory, and Senate Republicans, who have been overwhelmingly supportive of the Israeli action.

President Donald Trump told reporters on Tuesday evening he was “not thrilled about the way that went down” and “very unhappy with every aspect,” his first direct public comments on the Israeli strike, after White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt made comments to the same effect earlier in the day.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), asked about the White House statement on the attack, told Jewish Insider, “I understand we have troops there, but my focus is Israel. Hamas has had every chance. … Lay down your weapons, release the hostages — you live. If you don’t — it keeps going.”

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) told JI, “Israel has made this very clear, and the same as we’ve made it very clear, we’re going to go after terrorist organizations, no matter where you’re at. We have a good relationship with the Qataris. They didn’t target the Qataris. They were targeting Hamas, and they had the right to do that.”

Asked about the administration’s comments, he said, “I understand where they’re at. My opinion is the Qataris knew good and well that they were there and they were doing nothing about it.”

He said that he does not know the full context of the strike at this point, but that if Israel had asked Qatar to take action against the Hamas leaders sheltering inside the country and Qatar had refused, “then I don’t blame Israel for doing that. Now if they didn’t have a conversation beforehand, maybe it is a different story.”

When asked about the White House’s statement, which described the Israeli strike as “unfortunate,” Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) responded, “I think it’s unfortunate that Qatar kept the Hamas leaders in their country, that was the unfortunate part.”

He said that he was surprised that the strike didn’t come sooner.

“Why did it take them so long? As soon as Oct. 7 happened, I met with the Qatari ambassador and I said, ‘Why are you hosting these people?’ He said, ‘Well, Obama asked.’ I said, ‘He gave you a bad job. Stop doing it,’” Scott continued. “I’m glad [Israel] did it. I’m impressed with what [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu’s done, the political leaders, the military leaders, the IDF, whether destroying Hamas, or Hezbollah or Iran — you have to really admire what they’re doing.”

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS), the most outspoken supporter of Qatar among Senate Republicans, stood alone in offering a full-throated criticism of the Israeli strike and fully backing Trump’s position.

“I fully agree with President [Trump]. At the request of the U.S. and Israel, Qatar is mediating a peace agreement. The Israeli attack on allied soil, where approximately 10,000 American troops are stationed, is highly ill-advised,” Marshall said on X. “Grateful that [Secretary of State Marco Rubio] is finalizing a Defense Coordination Agreement with Qatar to prevent Israel from repeating this action.”

A group of Senate Republicans sent a letter to French, German and U.K. officials this week urging them to immediately reimpose U.N. Security Council sanctions on Iran for the regime’s violations of the 2015 nuclear deal and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Six GOP senators, led by Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, urged French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot, German Federal Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul and U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy to utilize the snapback provision in UNSC Resolution 2231, which would reimpose all the sanctions lifted on Iran as part of the 2015 deal in response to any violations of the agreement. 

“Initiating the snapback process would be the right — and long overdue — move and would deny Iran the resources it uses for its terror agenda. The 2015 deal flooded Iran with cash while allowing it low-level enrichment, a clock to simply wait out, no limitations on ballistic missiles, and nothing to rein in terror proxies. Years down the line, the sanctions relief Iran received from this deal directly funded Iran’s terror proxies and led to Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel,” the senators wrote.

“Iran’s ejection of the International Atomic Energy Agency from its facilities marked the latest in a long chain of violations to Iran’s nuclear commitments. These actions confirm what we have known all along: the Iranian nuclear program is not civilian; it is the pursuit of a bomb to destroy Israel and threaten U.S. national security interests in the region. The international community must not tolerate this activity any longer,” they continued. 

The letter was co-signed by Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), John Cornyn (R-TX), Steve Daines (R-MT) and Bill Hagerty (R-TN).

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot warned on Tuesday that the E3, the European countries party to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, will trigger the snapback mechanism, reimposing all U.N. sanctions, if a new agreement is not reached.

The senators encouraged the recipients of their letter to go beyond simply initiating the snapback sanctions, which takes 30 days and would likely need to be completed before Russia takes over the presidency of the UNSC in October, the same time that the snapback mechanism is set to expire. 

“The decision to initiate the snapback process is only the beginning. The UNSC must fully process and formally re-instate UN sanctions without delay. This will take several weeks, and the October expiration of the snapback mechanism is looming. Furthermore, once sanctions are back in place, we must commit to their enforcement. Chinese purchases of Iranian oil and illicit oil smuggling through third countries have long violated existing U.S. secondary sanctions. Once UN sanctions return, all member countries will have a duty to crack down on this illegal activity,” the group wrote.

“President Trump has instituted a maximum pressure policy to bring Iran to the negotiating table. It is our sincere hope that our allies will stand side by side with America as we counter Iran’s threat to regional and global security for good,” they continued.

Senate Republicans on Tuesday emphasized that Trump administration officials need to follow the president’s lead on foreign policy, after President Donald Trump publicly overrode a Defense Department-instituted halt on weapons for Ukraine.

The public back-and-forth indicated discord between the president and the Pentagon. Trump on Tuesday appeared to suggest he was out of the loop about the Ukraine military freeze; when a reporter asked him who had ordered the halt, Trump responded, “I don’t know, you tell me.” 

Top Pentagon policy official Elbridge Colby reportedly led the move, citing a review allegedly showing U.S. missile defense interceptor shortages. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth approved the decision without informing the White House, CNN reported, and Trump did not specifically direct him to halt the weapons transfers. Politico reported that a series of other unilateral moves by Colby have surprised and frustrated Trump administration officials and U.S. allies.

Trump’s own policy on Ukraine as it defends itself against Russian aggression has been inconsistent since taking office, but in recent months he has grown publicly frustrated with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s approach to the war. Trump is now also backing a bipartisan Senate sanctions bill targeting Russia, according to the bill’s lead sponsor, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

Republican hawks on Capitol Hill praised Trump’s decision to reinstate U.S. aid to the country, with several warning Pentagon officials against working at cross purposes with the president, though they declined to directly address the behind-the scenes machinations.

“Policy on defense and otherwise, it’s clear, is set by the president, it’s not set by his underlings,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) told Jewish Insider, adding that he thinks that Trump’s own position on the issue has hardened because “President Trump is rapidly becoming fed up with President Putin and starting to see him for what he is, which is a pirate and a liar” who only responds to pressure.

Kennedy denied that the Pentagon had been at odds with Trump, however, adding, “Whether you like it or dislike it, the people who generally get crosswise with the president that work for him only do it one time.”

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) told JI, “Generally speaking, I don’t think [Trump] likes people getting out ahead of him. So they need to coordinate that. I assume they did, it could have just been one situation, but you need to coordinate with the president.”

Tillis added that “anything that cuts short or challenges Ukraine’s resupply and support is a bad idea, and it’ll be a disastrous mistake.”

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) told JI, “I’m in favor of additional aid for Ukraine. Whether it is simply a matter of having the Department of Defense get very clear orders from the president, or if it’s a matter of clarifying for the rest of the world to hear that we’re not walking away from Ukraine, I think it’s a very important message to send.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the former Republican Senate leader, offered the most pointed criticism of those in the administration who have advocated for cutting off aid to Ukraine.

“This time, the President will need to reject calls from isolationists and restrainers within his Administration to limit these deliveries to defensive weapons,” McConnell said in a statement. “And he should disregard those at DoD who invoke munitions shortages to block aid while refusing to invest seriously in expanding munitions production. The self-indulgent policymaking of restrainers — from Ukraine to AUKUS — has so often required the President to clean up his staff’s messes.”

According to Politico, Colby independently ordered a review of the AUKUS submarine pact with the U.K. and Australia, which also surprised other elements of the Trump administration.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, declined to comment on “palace intrigue” and said he was “just glad to see Washington, D.C., on a bipartisan basis moving in the right direction in favor of the good guys.”

“Facts become clearer, and more and more people, including the president and members of the administration, are coming to the realization that Putin wants nothing but conquest, and if he gets it in Ukraine, he won’t stop there,” Wicker told JI. “So it’s just a matter of the truth coming to light.”

Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC) suggested that the change had come about as a result of new information, rather than discord within the administration.

“Well, I think all of us have the right to change your mind when you have new information, so he’s not happy with the situation,” Budd said. “Again, I think all of our hearts are supportive of Ukraine. We want to make sure they have the right leadership, and transparency that they’re doing the right thing. So I think he’s making the right decision with the information that he’s given in real time.”

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) said he wasn’t familiar with the exchange between Trump and the Pentagon, but noted concerns about U.S. stockpiles.

“I don’t know what the back-and-forth is,” Mullin said. “I know what we’re trying to do right now is build up our stockpiles, because we let things get pretty low with some of our missile systems, but I haven’t heard the back and forth between Trump and the Pentagon.”

Among Democrats, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called out Colby and Hegseth by name.

“I am pleased that President Trump appears to have reversed course on the dangerous and shortsighted decision made by Secretary Hegseth and Under Secretary Colby to continue critical assistance to Ukraine,” Shaheen said in a statement. “Unfortunately, last week’s decision sent exactly the wrong message. And it came with a tragic human cost.”

Analysts outside the administration emphasized that Trump’s policy is his own and hard-liners inside the Pentagon should be mindful that their views are not necessarily the same as Trump’s.

“I think over the last few years, it has been very, very clear that the only person who speaks for President Trump is President Trump,” Carrie Filipetti, the executive director of the Vandenberg Coalition and an official in the first Trump administration, told JI. “There are a lot of people, specifically within the Pentagon, that are much more ideological, who have assumed that President Trump shares their ideology, when really President Trump has always been much more flexible and responsive.”

Filipetti added that, from her experience in the first Trump administration, the president could get frustrated when officials “tried to speak for him” or “got over their skis and assumed that they knew the direction he was going in.”

She said that the administration’s recent moves, as well as some of Trump’s hawkish policies dating back to his first administration, show that the calculated use of force and economic power are key to Trump’s foreign policy.

“This is really a vindication of what Trump has always said was America First, which includes the willingness to use force if he can see how it will prevent a longer-term conflict,” Fillipetti explained. “Right now, I think the people who have pushed for a more hawkish policy are gaining more influence, partially because they’re proving that the goal was never to start wars. The goal was to end wars by using force and strength as a deterrent.”

Heather Conley, a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the former president of the German Marshall Fund, said it seemed clear that the Pentagon had not coordinated its moves with other parts of the administration or Congress, catching the White House off-guard.

“I think this was probably a very important lesson that the senior leadership in the Pentagon learned: that there’s no independent review, that these things are all connected and are all highly political and need to be coordinated with the White House, and Congress, most certainly, as well,” Conley said. “I think this will be a reinforcing lesson for the Pentagon to not get ahead of the president.” 

Referencing Colby specifically, Conley said, “He may have very strong views about what is needed, but the president is shaping this policy, he’s shaping it every hour and every day, and that means it’s moving very quickly. … [Administration officials] have to be in alignment for there to be success. And they also may not be able to pursue their own independent view of where things should go.”

Conley said that the capability review that prompted the cutoff was necessary — given proper coordination — for any administration, in light of the multiple draws on American weapons reserves. 

She said that the situation highlights the need for the U.S. to significantly accelerate its missile-defense production capacity and find ways to prompt Ukraine to expand its domestic production capacity, explaining that the U.S. lacks the ability to produce sufficient interceptors to cover Ukraine, the Middle East and potentially Taiwan. 

Conley also noted that this isn’t the first time the Pentagon has appeared to be acting out of step with the White House, pointing to moves by Hegseth on Ukraine policy dating back to February.

Administration spokespeople have denied any discord or lack of coordination within the administration. 

Kingsley Wilson, the Pentagon’s press secretary, told CNN in a statement that said in part, “Secretary Hegseth provided a framework for the President to evaluate military aid shipments and assess existing stockpiles. This effort was coordinated across government.” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Trump “has full confidence in the secretary of defense.”

The Department of Defense and National Security Council did not respond to requests for comment.

Jewish Insider’s congressional correspondent Emily Jacobs contributed reporting.

Two Senate Republicans are urging the administration against lifting any sanctions on Iran in absence of real concessions from the regime, following comments from Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff indicating the U.S. had already rolled back some sanctions.

Witkoff, speaking on CNBC on Wednesday, appeared to confirm that President Donald Trump had lifted some oil sanctions on Iran this week, as a signal of cooperation to China and Iran. Trump also said at the NATO summit that Iran would “need money to put that country back into shape. We want to see that happen,” adding, “If they’re going to sell oil, they’re going to sell oil.”

The comments came after Trump posted on Truth Social earlier this week, “China can continue to purchase Oil from Iran” — comments that a senior White House official said did not indicate any policy shift or sanctions relief.

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) told Jewish Insider he had heard Trump and Witkoff’s comments and that he was not sure what they were referring to, but said no sanctions should be removed until Iran ends its support for terrorism and guarantees that International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors have access to facilities in Iran.

“We’re trying to get additional details, because we’re hearing the sanctions are still there, as well they should be. They still have acts of terrorism. Until we can actually verify that they’ve actually set aside planting terrorism around the region, we need to continue to be able to put pressure on them,” Lankford told JI.

He said the U.S. should not be removing any sanctions at this point, noting, “We can’t verify anything on the ground yet. … They’re literally trying to be able to block out the future [International Atomic Energy Agency] certification,” referring to an Iranian parliament effort to block IAEA inspectors from Iran going forward.

“We know they don’t have the power and the ability to be able to highly enrich uranium at this point, but we don’t have the ability, still, to be able to verify things on the ground,” Lankford continued. “And we have no shift in their policy, as far as we can tell — and certainly not in their charter — on what their stand is for terrorism in the region and to us.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said that sanctions relief should “[depend] on what we get for it. If we get complete denuclearization and a peace between Israel and Iran, that might be worth talking about.”

He said that the U.S. should not remove any sanctions preemptively.

“We should get something for it. Certainly, Iran is back on its heels now, and this is exactly the right time to negotiate some sort of long-standing arrangement,” Cornyn said. “I wouldn’t do anything preemptive.”

Senate Republicans are, at least publicly, showing some signs of division on the possibility of a U.S. strike to eliminate the deeply entrenched Iranian nuclear facility at Fordow, as the Trump administration appears to be increasingly discussing the prospect.

President Donald Trump held a Situation Room meeting with his national security team on Tuesday after publicly suggesting that the U.S. might join Israel’s operations in Iran. Israel is believed to need U.S. assistance to destroy Fordow, and officials have said their operations will not end without hitting the site.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), asked by reporters about striking the nuclear site, reiterated what he told Jewish Insider a day prior. “How can you be successful without taking out Fordow?”

A senior Republican senator who requested anonymity to discuss internal conference dynamics, estimated that a vast majority of the conference, around 90% of Senate Republicans, are at least privately united on the issue of the U.S. supporting Israel in bombing the Fordow facility if Israel needs such support. 

Other Senate Republicans with whom JI spoke on Tuesday did not fully echo that view.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) said he’d want the U.S. to get involved directly in Israel’s campaign if the U.S. believes there is an imminent threat to the U.S., or if Israel is not able to fully destroy Iran’s nuclear program on its own.

“If we have intelligence saying that they were a true threat and that they’re going to go after us, then I want to be proactive not reactive,” Mullin said. “And if for some reason Israel can’t finish the job, President Trump has made this point very clear, in no way are we going to allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. So if for some reason the job can’t be finished, then that’s the time for us to have to go finish it.”

Experts largely believe that Fordow will be able to continue operating and Iran’s nuclear program will survive if the U.S. does not join Israel’s strikes on Iran.

Asked about striking Fordow, Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC) said, “I think we need to make sure we force Iran to the table and that we’re strong,” adding that diplomacy should be “the primary effort and we do it through being strong.”

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) said that Fordow needs to be eliminated but warned that a strike on the site would leave the nuclear materials there buried.

“I’m a little confused on all the conversation about dropping a bunker buster on a mountain that’s filled with enriched uranium, and how that solves the problem,” Lankford said. “If you’re going to try to get enriched uranium out of the country, dropping a big bunker buster on it may disable the centrifuges in [Fordow], but you still have 900 pounds of enriched uranium sitting there.”

He also said that the U.S. may not be able strike Iran before Iran attacks U.S. personnel, unless Trump can present to Congress and the American people evidence of a direct threat toward the United States, as was the case in the 2020 strike that killed Quds Force head Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

Meanwhile, multiple Senate Democrats who spoke to JI on Tuesday said they haven’t yet made up their minds about two separate pieces of legislation, led by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT), which aim to block U.S. involvement in Iran without direct congressional approval. None said affirmatively that they plan to join either effort.

Sanders’ bill was introduced with seven Democratic co-sponsors. Kaine’s resolution is likely to come up for a vote under special procedures in the coming weeks.

Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), who led legislation in the House in 2020 to block U.S. attacks against Iran in the wake of the killing of Soleimani, said she hasn’t yet decided whether she’ll support the new legislation.

“We’re just looking at it pretty closely now,” Slotkin said, noting her past work on the issue.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said he needed to look at Kaine’s resolution more closely, but said that from his understanding, “it seems to articulate what is our constitutional responsibility, and in no way constrains the president from any legitimate exercise of war powers and foreign policy.”

Asked about striking Fordow, Blumenthal added that Israel “seems to be prevailing tactically, and I believe it has the right to defend itself against the existential menace of a nuclear armed [Iran],” which would also be “a threat to the entire world, including the United States.”

“I support our providing the means for Israel to defend itself against Iran’s retaliation,” he continued. “I’m concerned about U.S. personnel in the region, and I hope that a wider conflict can be avoided.”

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said she hasn’t yet had the opportunity to review the legislation.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) said that he was planning to review the legislation on Tuesday evening.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), an isolationist-leaning Republican who supported a similar effort in 2020, said “you’ll know soon” if he’ll support the new legislation. He has argued that the administration would need congressional approval for operations against Iran barring an imminent threat.

An effort in the House led by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) that mirrors Kaine’s resolution to block U.S. military action against Iran without congressional authorization, on which the sponsors could force a vote, is picking up support from a group of progressive Democrats.

That resolution is co-sponsored by an expanding group of House progressives, including Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA), Don Beyer (D-VA), Greg Casar (D-TX), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Chuy Garcia (D-IL), Delia Ramirez (D-IL), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Summer Lee (D-PA), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Mark Pocan (D-WI), Paul Tonko (D-NY), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), Becca Balint (D-VT) and Val Hoyle (D-OR).

Some Senate Republicans argued Monday that the U.S. should join Israel’s strikes on Iran to help it destroy deeply entrenched nuclear sites such as the Fordow facility, contending that Israel lacks the capacity to do so on its own. Others, though, argued that Israel may have alternative plans to attack Fordow, while still others suggested that the U.S. should hold back and focus on diplomacy unless U.S. personnel are attacked directly.

The comments come amid increasing speculation that the U.S. could become involved in the Israeli campaign, following comments by President Donald Trump on Truth Social that “Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!” The Israeli government issued evacuation warnings for parts of the city earlier in the day. Trump also announced he would be leaving the G7 Summit in Canada early, though he wrote on Truth Social that the reason he was departing “certainly has nothing to do with a Cease Fire” between Israel and Iran and is “much bigger than that.”

Assessments have long held that bunker-busting bombs and larger bombers, neither of which Israel has, are needed to eliminate Fordow, though some analysts have speculated in recent days that Israel has been developing alternative strategies to strike that site.

“We have to. I think we have to help. I am going to be encouraging the president [to support Israel] because the greatest tragedy in the world would be if we left the Iranian regime in place with a nuclear easy startup. I’d hate to see Israel spending all those resources of people and dollars on getting the job 90% done,” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) told Jewish Insider.

“I just think it would be silly to not help. I mean, here we are at this point and then to just [not let Israel finish the job] because they didn’t have the bombs that we have or the airplanes that carry them. That action alone could probably take the regime out. Now, you could try to just force the regime off some other way, but I wouldn’t leave either one of those things, the regime or the nuclear program, undone,” Cramer continued. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told JI that how the U.S. approaches Israel and Iran “is the most important decision the president will make. For the future of the Mideast and the security of Israel and our country, I think we go all in.”

A Senate Republican who requested anonymity to speak candidly about the situation said that Israel is not capable of destroying Fordow and similar facilities without U.S. assistance, and said they and colleagues are working with the administration on ensuring that it is provided.

“Israel can’t finish the job without us, not completely. We’ll give them the bombs but we need to help as well,” one senior Senate Republican told JI of the necessity of U.S. military support for Israel’s operation to take out Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

The senator cited the need for bunker-buster bombs to impact facilities that are deep underground. Only the U.S. possesses both the bombs and the planes that are capable of carrying the 30,000-pound explosives. “We’re working on the president,” the senator told JI. 

White House spokesperson Alex Pfeiffer on Monday denied an Israeli report that the U.S. was already conducting strikes inside Iran, saying, “American forces are maintaining their defensive posture, and that has not changed. We will defend American interests.”

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) told JI he would leave the decision on intervening up to the president, but suggested Israel may have alternative plans to address Iran’s most hardened facilities. 

“We will stand with Israel,” Rounds said. “Israel has done a marvelous job of preplanning their approach. They knew full well that we were not interested in participating or getting involved in this at this stage of the game, so my suspicion is they have their own plans on how to address [Fordow].”

“Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, it’s just simply gotten to that point. Israel is taking charge and I suspect they have a plan to finish the job,” he reiterated.

Asked about his takeaways from a Senate Intelligence Committee briefing on the issue earlier in the day, Rounds said it had “reaffirmed that Israel clearly had excellent plans and this is not a happenstance. This is a well-planned-out maneuver that had to be accomplished because, as I think most people realize, Iran was getting closer and closer to having enough equipment, supplies and so forth to actually create, in the very near future, a bomb, if they so desired to.”

“You can only go along with that so long before you realize you’re going to have to act, and this was the opportunity that they had,” Rounds added. 

Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) said the U.S. should get involved directly if Iran attacks any U.S. personnel but said the U.S. should otherwise remain focused on pressing Iran back to the negotiating table.

“I applaud the president for trying to get to a negotiated agreement and perhaps Iran will come to the realization that that is their only way out of this, and that’s what we should be pursuing at this point,” Ricketts told JI.

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. “

Multiple Senate Republicans said Wednesday that they plan to scrutinize President Donald Trump’s nomination of Paul Ingrassia, a far-right figure picked last week to lead the Office of Special Counsel, charged with fighting corruption and fighting federal whistleblowers.

Ingrassia has trafficked in conspiracy theories, including, as early as Oct. 8, 2023, describing the Hamas attack and ensuing war as a “psyop,” as well as defending prominent antisemites including Kanye West, Andrew Tate and Nick Fuentes.

Several Republican members said they were not deeply familiar with Ingrassia’s record but planned to dig into it further before his nomination hearing.

“We just got news of the nom[ination] coming forward. Those [comments] are obviously concerning and we’ll have our staff doing a full background check, but those are, on their face, concerning,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) told Jewish Insider.

Tillis was a vocal opponent of Ed Martin, previously Trump’s nominee to be U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., over his defense of those involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, including a known Nazi sympathizer. Amid that opposition, Trump withdrew the nomination.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) said he wasn’t familiar with Ingrassia but that he planned to take a deeper look at him. “I’m not familiar with his record, but I don’t like the guys you just named or their views,” Hawley said, referring to Tate and Fuentes.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) expressed surprise about Ingrassia’s history and affiliations, and said he would “certainly monitor the situation.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) argued on Wednesday that sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program can’t be separated from other sanctions on the regime as part of a nuclear deal, comparing the approach apparently being taken by the Trump administration to that of the Obama administration.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said in congressional testimony this week that talks with Tehran have revolved solely around Iran’s nuclear program and have not addressed its sponsorship of terrorism or its ballistic missile program, but said that sanctions related to terrorism and missiles would remain in place if those issues are not addressed in a potential deal.

“The Obama administration invented the category of ‘nuclear sanctions’ as an excuse to give the Ayatollah whatever he wanted for a nuclear deal,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said to Jewish Insider. 

“It has nothing to do with how Congress passed or past presidents implemented sanctions against the Iranian regime, which was to use our most powerful sanctions against the full range of Iran’s aggression. President Trump rightly refused to certify and then withdrew from the deal because he said that lifting these ‘nuclear sanctions’ gave Iran too much for too little benefit,” he continued.

Congressional Republicans argued in the past, when the original nuclear deal included a similar formula, that the distinctions between nuclear and non-nuclear sanctions were largely specious. Those same lawmakers have maintained that any new funding the regime received would ultimately fuel proxy terrorism and regional destabilization, regardless of the targets of those sanctions.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) expressed confidence that the Trump administration understood that any deal must be multi-faceted, though he noted that Congressional Republicans haven’t been briefed on the talks.

“I have to believe at the end of the day, they realize that it’s not just about enrichment, but it’s all the other enabling capabilities, because the reality is the world’s a dangerous place and if they had that underlying capability, maybe then they’ll build their own bomb,” Tillis told JI.

“We got to support Israel. Iran uses proxies to attack America and Israel, they chant ‘Death to America.’ So what they’ve got to do is they’ve got to stop enriching uranium, that’s number one. And number two, we’ve got to make sure they have no money to give their proxies,” Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) said when asked his position on a deal.

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) told JI he hadn’t kept up with Rubio’s testimony, but said that addressing Iran’s proxy terrorism is crucial.

“Iran’s the largest state sponsor of terrorism. Israel is fighting proxies all the way around them. The entire region’s destabilized. Egypt is struggling economically because of the Houthis and what they’re doing,” Lankford said. “The proxies are the problem in the area and you can’t disconnect Iran and the regime and what they’re doing in the entire region to destabilize the region.”

Another Senate Republican, speaking on condition of anonymity to speak candidly, said he has faith in Rubio, but that an arrangement as outlined by Rubio would require “an awful lot of trust built into it, and I don’t trust Iran.”

“Money is obviously fungible. And the whole point of proxies is you can do whatever you want without doing whatever you want [directly],” the senator said. “There’s just an awful lot of trust built into.”

The senator said, “There’s probably a time where I’d be willing to give them a little bit of room, but they’re an awfully long ways down the road, so I don’t know. I just hope they keep a very, very tight grip on a very, very short leash.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told JI that, “I like the American position, the administration’s position of no enrichment, complete dismantlement … and [would] have to include their missile program.”

“Anything short of that would be inadequate,” he added.

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) similarly argued that a deal around Iran’s nuclear weapons would likely include addressing Iran’s pursuit of intercontinental ballistic missiles. He added that Iran should not receive any sanctions relief without addressing its nuclear buildup.

Other senators seem to be focusing their attention more on ensuring that dismantling Iran’s enrichment remains a red line for the United States.

“At the end of the day, we’ve got to see what the final package is,” Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE), who recently led nearly all Senate Republicans on a letter insisting on full dismantlement, said. “The biggest issue is going to be the enrichment part. If we can crack the enrichment nut, that’s a big deal.”

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) similarly said, “The president’s been very clear. I think the Republican side of the aisle in the Senate has been very clear. No enrichment, zero, zilch, nada, no centrifuges. The Iranian leadership doesn’t need it. They can import uranium for civil nuclear energy, so they can either take it or leave it. We can do it the easy way, the hard way.”

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, one of the most popular officials in the state, announced on Monday he will not challenge Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) when he is up for reelection in 2026, dealing a blow to Senate Republicans, who were hoping his candidacy would have given Republicans an edge in a critical battleground.

Kemp said in a statement on Monday that he had “decided that being on the ballot next year is not the right decision for me and my family.”

“I spoke with President Trump and Senate leadership earlier today and expressed my commitment to work alongside them to ensure we have a strong Republican nominee who can win next November, and ultimately be a conservative voice in the US Senate who will put hardworking Georgians first. I am confident we will be united in that important effort, and I look forward to electing the next generation of leaders up and down the ballot here in the Peach State who will keep our state and nation headed in the right direction in 2026 and beyond,” Kemp said. 

National Republicans and top Senate GOP leaders had been lobbying Kemp to consider challenging Ossoff for months, with a recent poll commissioned by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution showing Kemp with a narrow advantage over the Democratic senator.

Without Kemp in the race, the GOP nominee is more likely to appeal to the right-wing activists that play an outsized role in today’s Georgia Republican party. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has been mentioned as a possible candidate in the race. Other potential candidates include: Reps. Mike Collins (R-GA), Rich McCormick (R-GA) and Buddy Carter (R-GA), all of whom are among the most conservative lawmakers in the House.

Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a more moderate alternative, has also been mentioned as a potential candidate. 

Pro-Israel elements of the Democratic Party expressed an openness to backing Kemp over Ossoff, if the governor ran for the Senate. Ossoff’s vote last year to block military aid to Israel alienated many Jewish voters in the state, and the backlash played a role in his rejection of additional similar measures targeting the Jewish state when they came up for a vote last month. 

But Kemp’s decision not to run could help push skeptical Jewish Democrats and independents back toward Ossoff’s column, especially if the Democratic senator works more closely with the Jewish community in the state, which is strongly supportive of Israel.   

A spokesperson for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee said in a statement: “Brian Kemp’s decision to not run for Senate in 2026 is yet another embarrassing Republican Senate recruitment failure as they face a building midterm backlash where every GOP candidate will be forced to answer for Trump’s harmful agenda.”

Jewish Insider’s senior congressional correspondent Marc Rod contributed to this report.

Thirty-four members of the 116th Congress previously served as mayors, 161 hold law degrees and 78 have served in the military. Only two are former NFL players. And one of those is Rep. Anthony Gonzalez, a 34-year-old freshman Republican lawmaker from Ohio. 

Gonzalez, who visited Israel last week on a trip coordinated by the AIPAC-affiliated American Israel Education Foundation, sat down in Jerusalem with Jewish Insider to discuss his time in the Jewish state, his unorthodox path to Congress, his efforts to reach across the political aisle and his thoughts on the political future of his former teammate, Peyton Manning. 

“When I left the NFL I was never sure exactly what would translate to the rest of my life,” Gonzalez told JI last week in the lobby of the King David Hotel. “When you leave something like the NFL, the concern is always that you didn’t develop any skills that translate into the traditional business world, or the non-NFL world.” But in fact, he said, “there are unbelievable parallels, both from a campaign standpoint, but more importantly from [the standpoint of] how to work with people who you may not agree with.”

Gonzalez, the son of a Cuban immigrant father, grew up in Cleveland, Ohio. He played college football at The Ohio State University, and was drafted by the Indianapolis Colts in 2007. In 2012 he signed with the New England Patriots, but was released several months later and opted to retire from the sport, going on to earn an MBA degree from Stanford. In 2018, when a congressional seat opened up in Ohio’s 16th district, Gonzalez beat out two Republicans in the primary and trounced Democrat Susan Moran Palmer in November. Since taking office in January, the congressman has regularly pursued bipartisan initiatives and worked closely with several Democrat lawmakers. 

“One flaw of American politics is that we simply do not sit together and talk through issues in a bipartisan way,” he said. “We do that in our silos, and then we come to the House floor and we argue like cats and dogs — it doesn’t make a bit of sense to me, but that’s what we do.” Gonzalez said that more conversations and discussions that reach across the aisle “will ultimately lead to better legislation and better lawmaking.”

Reps. Anthony Gonzalez (R-OH) and Steve Cohen, (D-TN) are seen in Rayburn Building in January 2019.

One issue in particular that Gonzalez has been working on with a Democratic colleague is foreign election interference. He and fellow freshman Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) have spearheaded a task force to address the role of foreign agents in spreading propaganda in the United States. 

“What we wanted to do was come together as a bipartisan group and push legislation that will hopefully protect our infrastructure and also force disclosure on certain entities who are broadcasting propaganda into our country,” he said, pointing in particular to Russian networks including Sputnik and Russia Today. “These are two entities that are sponsored and controlled by the Russian government,” he said. “And if they’re going to be broadcasting into the country on stories that are pure propaganda, I think they need to disclose who they are.”

Gonzalez said he is confident if and when legislation from the task force comes to the House floor, it will receive widespread support. 

“My belief is that this is one of those things that — when you read it and you understand the situation — you ask yourself, how is this not already a law?” he said. “I’m hopeful.”  

The freshman Republican spoke to JI just a week after the mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio — a few hours from where he grew up. Gonzalez said he hopes that when Congress reconvenes in September, real action can be taken on the issue. 

“We need to have these debates,” he said. “Let’s put everything on the table and let’s work on things that are actually going to solve the problem. There are a lot of bills that we can talk about that will make us feel good, but probably won’t do much.”

Gonzalez added that “the one thing that I can guarantee is: If we do nothing, if we don’t work on our mental health issues, if we don’t have the debate about what sensible laws look like, nothing will change… If we don’t enact solutions, we’re going to be talking about this again in the not-too-distant future, and that’s horrifying.” 

The Ohio Republican would like to see progress made on red flag laws, where guns can be removed from people deemed by a judge to be a danger to themselves and others. 

“To me it just makes sense that if there is an individual who is threatening, has deep mental illness, is showing all kinds of signs that they are going to commit one of these mass murders, then I think we need to have the system where you are able to take the weapons away from that person and potentially commit them to an asylum of some sort,” he said. “We need a mechanism to step in and make sure that nothing horrible happens.”

And Gonzalez is aware that the issue of gun safety is a critical one to many American Jews, particularly in the wake of two fatal synagogue shootings in the past year. He said he has asked Jewish friends in his district: “‘Do you feel safe going to synagogue? Do you feel secure in the community?’ And the reality is a lot of them don’t right now, and security costs and insurance costs are going through the roof for a lot of our synagogues because of these attacks.”

Gonzalez said it is “shocking that we’re dealing with this in our country in 2019, but at the same time, I believe that we have a cultural sickness that is manifesting itself in a whole host of places. And unfortunately, antisemitism is one of those places.” He posited that there is no “quick fix” to the issue, but “there are things we can do from a funding standpoint to help provide security to make sure that… our Jewish brothers and sisters can worship in peace.”

While Gonzalez has criticized President Donald Trump — calling his attack on “the Squad” last month “wildly inappropriate” — he mostly tries to steer clear of the constant partisan squabbling. 

“This job is about making law. That’s fundamentally what my job is,” he said. “My job is to advocate for policies that are going to benefit my district. And so that is what I focus all of my time and energy on. I’m somebody who doesn’t find… the tweeting and the 24-hour cable news cycle to be one that is particularly productive for lawmaking. I actually think it’s a complete disaster.” Gonzalez said he deleted his personal Twitter account from his phone “about a month ago. And I am so much happier. Twitter is a complete cesspool.” 

Wide receiver Anthony Gonzalez #11 of the Indianapolis Colts runs a pass pattern against the Cleveland Browns at Cleveland Browns Stadium on November 30, 2008.

Gonzalez’s visit to Israel this month was his first to the country, and an opportunity he immediately jumped to take.  

“The Middle East is a complicated place, and I think it’s incumbent on all members of Congress to understand the issues in the Middle East, understand who our friends are, who our allies are, what the state of play is and how we can partner forward,” he said. “Not to mention that I’ve always wanted to come here for its historical significance, religious significance and geopolitical significance.”

The freshman congressman pointed to the group’s meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, discussing ways Israel can partner with the U.S. on tech innovation and cyber security, as a highlight of the trip. 

“We had a great discussion about where the future of the U.S.-Israel relationship can go,” Gonzalez said of the meeting. “He spoke eloquently about our ability to partner on cyber security, on big data and machine-learning initiatives specific to the intelligence community, but also the armed forces. And that makes perfect sense because Israel is so unbelievably innovative as a country and is so far ahead of the curve… when it comes to innovating on our technological future.”

One area that wasn’t much discussed in the sit down with Netanyahu? Peace or Palestinians. 

“We didn’t get into that as much,” Gonzalez said. “We focused primarily on the U.S.-Israel relationship.”

The Ohio lawmaker chose to skip the delegation’s visit to Ramallah after learning that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas opted not to meet with the Republicans, despite meeting a similar Democratic delegation a week earlier. 

But Gonzalez said he and his wife, Elizabeth, took time to explore the city of Jerusalem and meet average citizens. 

“I’ve done that a handful of times throughout this trip,” he told JI. “I went for dinner one night with my wife and then we walked into the shopping areas and just talked to people. And I felt like I got a pretty well-rounded perspective on Israel.”

Gonzalez and Rep. Colin Allred (D-TX) — who was also on the recent AIPAC trip — are the only former NFL players currently in Congress, but could more be joining the ranks soon? Peyton Manning, Gonzalez’s former Colts teammate, contributed to the Republican’s congressional campaign in 2018. And rumors that the legendary quarterback could enter politics himself continue to abound.

“He’s too smart for that,” Gonzalez said with a laugh. “He won’t. He’s not gonna run… he would win unquestionably, without a doubt… he’s an incredible competitor and he’s very smart. So I think he would do very well if he wanted to. But I would put the odds of him jumping into politics at zero.”