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.”