The South Carolina Republican had recently returned from a trip to Kyiv, Ukraine, and Ankara, Turkey
Amir Levy/Getty Images
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) speaks at a press conference on US-Israel relations on February 17, 2025
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who represented South Carolina in the Senate for more than two decades and was a stalwart supporter of Israel during his time in office, died on Saturday, his office announced. He was 71.
Graham, who served in the House of Representatives for more than a decade before being elected to the Senate in 2002, had recently returned from Ukraine, where he met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Prior to Ukraine, he had been part of a bipartisan U.S. delegation in Ankara, Turkey, for the NATO summit.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) @LindseyGrahamSC died Saturday following what his office described as “a brief and sudden illness.”
— Jewish Insider (@jewishinsider) July 12, 2026
Israeli Prime Minister @netanyahu called him “a great American patriot and a great champion of the Israel-American alliance.”
President Donald Trump… pic.twitter.com/sKzQc2XnmT
NBC News reported that emergency personnel had responded on Saturday evening to a call regarding a cardiac arrest at Graham’s home on Capitol Hill.
A longtime advocate for Israel, Graham traveled to the country in the immediate aftermath of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terror attacks, making at least 10 trips to the region since the onset of the Israel-Hamas war. He last traveled to Israel days before the outbreak of the Iran war in February 2026, during which he met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Graham was openly critical of Iran and skeptical of Western engagement with the Islamic Republic. He was a vocal opponent of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and favored military engagement to address the threats posed by the Islamic Republic. He defended the Trump administration’s recent negotiations with Tehran, but said in June that he thought those talks were “going to fail.”
The South Carolina Republican had been up for reelection in November after easily clearing the GOP field in the state’s primary last month. Graham’s death is expected to trigger a special primary in the state to determine who will replace him on the ballot.
The Republican lawmaker was swiftly eulogized by top Israeli political figures.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel had “lost one of its greatest friends.” Graham, Netanyahu said, “understood that the security of Israel and America are inseparable. He devoted his life to defending America, strengthening our alliance and standing up for the free world.”
Israeli President Isaac Herzog said in a statement that he was “shocked and heartbroken” to learn of Graham’s death, calling the senator a “dear friend” and a “great American patriot, a great friend of Israel.”
“Senator Graham was a beacon of moral clarity and a true leader of the U.S.-Israel partnership,” Herzog said. “We will never forget how he stood by the people of Israel in our most difficult moments, and we will remain eternally grateful for his sense of justice, truth, and loyalty.”
In a social media post, former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who is running in the current election, mourned Graham as one of the country’s “greatest friends,” who “stood with Israel through our darkest hours, with courage.”
Candidates vying for the Democratic nomination in Maine are largely pledging to oppose arms sales to Israel and reject AIPAC — but several have yet to say where they stand
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner and Troy Jackson stand together during a “Fighting Oligarchy” tour stop at the Collins Center for the Arts on the University of Maine campus on May 24, 2026 in Orono, Maine.
The mad dash to replace Graham Platner as the Democratic Senate nominee in Maine is coming together so quickly and haphazardly that one potential replacement, Nirav Shah, is taking stickers from his failed gubernatorial campaign and cutting off the “for governor” line below his name before handing them to supporters.
Much is still in flux about the process to replace Platner, who dropped out of the race on Wednesday two days after being accused of rape by a former romantic partner. His potential successors aren’t jockeying for the public’s approval — they’re angling for the support of the Maine Democratic Party, which voted on Wednesday, before Platner even announced his resignation, to hold a statewide nominating convention to tap his replacement. The MDP said it would share more in the days to come about the process, which according to state law would have to be completed by July 27.
Many of the candidates now seeking to succeed Platner on the general election ballot are commending the populist movement he built and looking to capitalize on it. Less than 24 hours into the contest, some had already made clear they will adopt a platform much like Platner’s when it comes to Israel — seeking to end U.S. weapons sales to the country and shunning donations from AIPAC — while others are remaining mum on that topic.
Shah, who served as the director of the Maine Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during the COVID-19 pandemic, said this week that he would support a full arms embargo against Israel, that he believes Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to genocide and that he would refuse AIPAC support. He finished second in the gubernatorial primary last month.
One contender who seems poised to rack up support from the party’s left flank is Troy Jackson, the former president of the Maine Senate. He placed third in last month’s gubernatorial primary, and earned the endorsement of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and the Maine chapter of Democratic Socialists of America in that race. Jackson was one of Platner’s biggest boosters and appeared with him at several campaign rallies.
Our Revolution, the Sanders-aligned advocacy organization, has already endorsed Jackson’s Senate campaign, along with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and far-left, antisemitic streamer Hasan Piker.
In a post on X on Thursday, Jackson accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, saying that “anybody with eyes” would agree, and pledged to “never vote in favor of U.S. taxpayer-funded military aid to Israel.” His team did not respond to a request for comment.
Jordan Wood, a former chief of staff to Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA) who placed third in last month’s congressional primary to replace retiring Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME), said in a Thursday statement announcing his Senate run that he would not accept money from “corporate PACs and AIPAC.” He said in a post on X that the U.S. “can’t continue to fund Israel’s genocide in Gaza,” and that he would support the Block the Bombs Act.
In a statement to Jewish Insider on Thursday, Wood added some nuance to his views: “Israel is our strongest ally in the Middle East,” Wood said via a spokesperson. “But there’s a difference between the Israeli people and the Netanyahu government, and nothing about self-defense justifies waging a war without limits. Starving children and flattened hospitals don’t make Israel safer, and they don’t make America safer.” He also stated that “Hamas must disarm, and it can never be allowed to govern Gaza again.”
Wood reiterated that he will not accept support from AIPAC but said AIPAC supporters are still welcome in the Democratic Party.
“Jewish Democrats, and Democrats who care deeply about Israel’s security, are part of this party and always will be,” he said. “What’s not welcome is AIPAC’s agenda, which demands unconditional support for the Netanyahu government’s genocide in Gaza no matter the cost in innocent lives.”
Paige Loud, a 29-year-old social worker who placed fourth in the same congressional primary as Wood, ran an anti-Israel campaign and claimed that Democrats lost the presidency in 2024 “because of our lackluster stance on the genocide that’s happening in Gaza right now.” Her campaign website says she is committed “to human rights, sovereignty, and self-determination everywhere — from Palestine to Iran, Ukraine, Venezuela, and Greenland.”
Shenna Bellows, Maine’s secretary of state and a former state senator, entered the race on Thursday afternoon. She espoused a similarly populist message to Platner, pledging to take on billionaires and corporations, but stayed away from mentioning the Middle East or AIPAC in her opening salvo. A spokesperson for Bellows, who also ran for governor in last month’s primary and placed fourth, did not respond to a request for comment.
Bellows served as executive director of the Holocaust and Human Rights Center of Maine from 2018 to 2020, an experience that she still refers to regularly. In a campaign video from International Holocaust Remembrance Day, she said one way to remember the Holocaust is as a story of “resistance, of communities coming together to say no to antisemitism, xenophobia, racism, homophobia,” and said that Americans must speak out “against any othering and dehumanization of our friends and neighbors.”
One unorthodox candidate is Dan Kleban, the founder of Maine Beer Company, a brewery in Freeport. He was briefly a candidate in the Senate primary last year, but dropped out early and endorsed Maine Gov. Janet Mills, the establishment favorite who dropped out of the race in April. He reentered the race on Wednesday and said in a Substack post that he’s “had enough meddling from Washington establishment insiders and New York City consultants trying to dictate who represents us,” ostensibly a dig at Platner’s own political consultants.
Asked on CNN this week if he considered Israel guilty of genocide, Kleban called the situation in Gaza an “absolute tragedy” and said he would support placing conditions on U.S. arms sales to Israel, but did not use the term genocide. Kleban told Politico in October that he would not have supported Sanders’ resolution to block arms sales to Israel.
“I believe Israel has a right to defend itself. I don’t think that we solve the horrific humanitarian crisis in Gaza by disarming Israel and exposing them to harm,” Kleban said at the time.
While Platner and Mills were the main candidates running for Senate, a third, David Costello — a former senior official in Maryland’sMaine’s Department of the Environment who got 8% of the vote in last month’s primary — is now running again. He said during the campaign that Israel, after the Oct. 7 attacks, “not only had a right but an obligation to attempt to crush Hamas.” But, he argued, they did not do so surgically, and said Israel’s conduct has been “indefensible.” He said he would oppose offensive weapons sales to Israel.
One possible wild card is state Rep. Valli Geiger, who has said she is considering entering the race. Geiger, who in the past defended Platner’s treatment of women, stuck by him until the end. “I will not throw Graham under the bus, but neither will I slander or accuse Ms. [Jenny] Racicot [Platner’s accuser] of anything more than telling the truth as she experienced it. I acknowledge the pain on all sides and offer compassion on all sides,” Geiger wrote on Facebook.
She has said little publicly about Gaza, but shared Facebook posts criticizing Israel, including one in April that listed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as someone who, like President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, harbors “delusions of grandeur.”
The New York City mayor, whose advisor Morris Katz also worked for Graham Platner, called on the Maine Senate contender to forfeit
Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
Mayor Zohran Mamdani speaks at a press conference during moving day at Gracie Mansion on January 12, 2026 in New York City.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani on Tuesday joined the swelling chorus of Democratic voices demanding the party’s nominee for Senate in Maine, Graham Platner, abandon his campaign in the aftermath of a rape allegation revealed in a Politico report on Monday — a campaign the mayor’s own top political advisor helped start and steer.
Mamdani’s remarks came shortly after an unrelated event at City Hall, a day after a former romantic partner of Platner’s accused him of drunkenly entering her home and sexually assaulting her in 2021. The mayor’s nearest political aide, Morris Katz, was one of the architects of Platner’s Senate run and one of his fiercest public defenders amid prior allegations of personal misconduct and the discovery that the candidate had a tattoo of a Nazi symbol.
But Mamdani made no remarks on Katz’s role in Platner’s rise, and declined to comment on the long-term consequences for the insurgent left-wing movement the two have championed.
“I believe that it’s time for him to drop out of the race,” the mayor said of Platner. “I think the focus of today should be on the campaign coming to a close. And I think there will be many more days to have conversations for what it means beyond that.”
The 27-year-old Katz reportedly talked up congressional candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier to Mamdani, leading the mayor to endorse her in the final days of her ultimately successful challenge to Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-NY).
It soon emerged that Avila Chevalier had bragged online about wiping her hands on the American flag, praised Soviet despots, pushed Russian government talking points and spread a conspiracy theory about COVID-19 — creating uncomfortable questions for Democratic leaders after she won the primary in the deep-blue district.
Katz also advised Democratic candidates Clare Valdez, Micah Lasher and Brad Lander in their successful primary bids elsewhere in New York City.
Senate leaders threatened to withhold funding from the race if Platner remains the nominee, while several of his progressive backers rescinded their endorsements
Laura Brett/Getty Images
Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner speaks to voters at a town hall at the Elks Lodge 188 on June 7, 2026 in Portland, Maine.
Democratic leaders coalesced around calls for Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner to withdraw from the race on Monday following a Politico report in which an ex-girlfriend of Platner’s accused the Democrat of sexual assault, an account the outlet backed up with her correspondence and other interviews.
Platner denied the allegation outright but said in a video statement that he’s “mindful of the political reality it will inflict” and would be “taking the time to reflect on the best path forward.” If Platner voluntarily drops out by July 13, the Maine Democratic Party would have until July 27 to pick a replacement to appear on the ballot.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), the chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said in a joint statement that Platner should withdraw, and that the DSCC would not invest financially in the Maine Senate race if Platner remained the nominee.
“The allegations reported today are incredibly disturbing — violence, abuse and sexual assault are absolutely unacceptable,” Schumer and Gillibrand said. “Graham Platner needs to immediately withdraw as the Democratic nominee for Senate and allow Maine Democrats the opportunity to choose a new candidate who can defeat Susan Collins.”
Schumer and Gillibrand had offered tepid support for Platner in the wake of previous scandals he has weathered on the campaign trail.
Senate Majority PAC, the Senate Democratic super PAC, said in a statement that Platner should withdraw and that the PAC would be “redirecting resources away from the Maine Senate race.” The group said the race would be winnable “if Platner is not on the ballot.”
The Maine Democratic Party’s leadership also called on Platner to end his candidacy.
“Over the past several weeks, multiple women have made serious, credible allegations against Graham Platner. Today’s statements take those allegations even further,” party leaders said in a statement. “Maine Democratic Party leadership is calling on Graham Platner to withdraw as the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate.”
The party leaders said it’s “essential that we refocus this campaign” on defeating Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and the Trump administration.
Maine Statehouse Speaker Ryan Fecteau, a Democrat, also called on Platner to drop out, saying it’s clear that he cannot win the seat.
Several prominent progressives who had previously defended and supported Platner, even through his previous scandals and controversies — including his now-covered Nazi tattoo and domestic abuse allegations — also said that the latest sexual assault allegations were a breaking point.
Sen. Elizbeth Warren (D-MA) said that there can be “no tolerance for sexual assault” and that “the best path forward is for Graham Platner to step aside.”
“I’ve been very clear that sexual assault or violence against women is a red line. These allegations are very serious and credible. Graham Platner should drop out from the race. I am withdrawing my endorsement,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) said on Monday evening.
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) called the allegations “troubling and deeply serious” and likewise rescinded his endorsement.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) said, “The allegations reported against Graham Platner are deeply disturbing and must be taken seriously. I cannot support his candidacy.”
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) similarly rescinded his endorsement and called for Platner to step aside.
Some of Platner’s prominent media boosters also said that they wanted to see him pull out of the race or otherwise criticized him.
“Platner needs to drop out ASAP — these are awful, credible allegations,” said Jon Favreau, co-host of “Pod Save America.” “It’s now abundantly clear that he just hasn’t been honest about his past and can’t be trusted as a candidate for office.”
Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), one of Platner’s most prominent progressive backers, has not yet addressed the latest allegations.
The End Citizens United PAC also pulled its support for Platner, as did the Sanders-linked Our Revolution, though the group warned “the Democratic establishment: this is not your opening.” TrackAIPAC also pulled its endorsement of Platner.
Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI), who is running for U.S. Senate in Michigan, also condemned Platner, who campaigned alongside her primary rival, Abdul El-Sayed.
“The allegations against Graham Platner are extremely troubling and completely unacceptable,” Stevens said. “There should be no room for this conduct in the U.S. Senate or any public office. Graham Platner must step aside.”
Numerous other Democratic Senate candidates followed her. El-Sayed, in a statement, did not unequivocally call for Platner to withdraw.
Speculation has already turned to who might replace Platner on the ballot, with many pointing to logger and former state Senate President Troy Jackson, a former gubernatorial candidate who finished third in the 2026 primary, as an alternative choice with a similar background and politics to Platner.
Jackson also campaigned alongside and supported Platner, something that could hinder his electoral prospects.
Jackson was endorsed by the Maine Democratic Socialists of America in his gubernatorial bid.
Former acting Centers for Disease Control Director Nirav Shah, who finished second in the primary, has also been floated as a potential replacement and has reportedly expressed interest.
Maine Gov. Janet Mills, the favored candidate of the Democratic establishment who suspended her campaign for the seat before the primary, could also see a second wind.
A recent poll also tested “Grey’s Anatomy” star and Maine resident Patrick Dempsey’s popularity in the state, as well as Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, who also ran in the gubernatorial primary; state Sen. Joe Baldacci; former House candidate Jordan Wood; Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME); former state Rep. Sara Gideon, who lost to Collins in 2020; former Rep. John Baldacci (D-ME); Attorney General Aaron Frey; and former Rep. Mike Michaud (D-ME).
State Sen. Baldacci said that the party “can’t handpick a replacement candidate without some process involving all Democrats” in the state.
Retiring Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME), who had been eyed by Democrats as a potential recruit for the seat, said last month that he was not interested in replacing Platner on the ballot.
The group identified four bills in the House’s online safety push that it felt could play a role in addressing online antisemitism, which were ultimately packaged into the KIDS Act
Getty Images
Illustrative
In a bid to protect Jewish children from rampant antisemitism on the internet, the Jewish Federations of North America is pushing lawmakers to support the KIDS Act, a major bipartisan package of legislation focused on children’s safety online that passed the House late last month by a 267-117 vote.
Omer Yarden-Oppenheim, director of government relations at JFNA, told Jewish Insider that online antisemitism has been a major conversation and challenge for Jewish families, especially since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel. He said the group identified four bills in the House’s online safety push that it felt could play a role in addressing online antisemitism, which were ultimately packaged into the KIDS Act.
“No single bill will solve these challenges right away, but we know that the KIDS Act is a meaningful bipartisan step towards making these platforms safer and more accountable for protecting young users, which includes Jewish users,” Yarden-Oppenheim said.
The four bills include the AWARE Act, which would develop educational resources on the safe and responsible use of AI chatbots; the Protecting a Safe Internet for Minors Act, which would create a public awareness campaign on safe internet use and best practices for minors; the Assessing Safety Tools for Parents and Minors Act, which would assess the effectiveness of existing safety tools; and the Kids Internet Safety Partnership Act, which would help identify online risks to children and develop recommendations for best practices.
The group endorsed the four pieces of legislation when they were first released several months ago and urged local federations to contact their members to support the bills, as well as advocate for them on fly-ins to Washington. Yarden-Oppenheim said he believes that work helped ensure the bills were included in the final KIDS Act package.
“There’s a lack of understanding of a lot of things that are happening online, and for Jewish families it’s the same. Parents feel like maybe they’re losing control a little bit of the things that their kids are being exposed to online,” Yarden-Oppenheim said. “These will give parents [and] educators the tools and more clarity and information on how to deal with these things in the future.”
Yet there’s still plenty of work ahead for supporters of the legislation, as Congress has struggled for years to reach a consensus on children’s online safety legislation, and the Senate and House have been advancing competing versions of the legislation.
“There’s still a meaningful divide on policy and approach between the House and the Senate, but we look forward to working with our partners, and we’ve already had those meetings, and we continue to have them,” Yarden-Oppenheim said. “We need to work with our partners in both chambers to elevate the importance of online safety and the need to ensure that Jewish families remain part of the national conversation, and be a willing partner along the way.”
JFNA and a coalition of other Jewish groups are also making a separate push to address online antisemitism through the Jewish American Security Act, which addresses online antisemitism, campus antisemitism and security threats to Jewish institutions.
Niv Elis, the associate vice president of external communications at JNFA, said that “there’s a huge question” of how society and the country should deal with social media, the internet and AI, and the KIDS Act is “just the tip of the iceberg.”
“What we’re seeing is that this is an excellent entry point to make sure … that the antisemitism piece isn’t left out, and a recognition that the tools that we need to protect the children are going to have extra levels of meaning for Jewish children who are facing different kinds of harm online because they’re not just facing the same bullying as everybody but they’re also facing an additional level through through the antisemitism,” Elis said.
Yarden-Oppenheim added that there are other threats that the Jewish community also aims to counter, including foreign influence, AI deep fakes and other issues that have impacted the Jewish community. The group is working with lawmakers to introduce legislation next year to study how algorithms and other platform features can spread hate, harassment and radicalization.
The state lawmaker did not offer an endorsement of either of her former Democratic primary rivals, Rep. Haley Stevens and Abdul El-Sayed
Jacek Boczarski/Anadolu via Getty Images
State Sen. Mallory McMorrow, a Democrat from Michigan speaks during the 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois, United States on August 19, 2024.
Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow dropped out of the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate on Sunday, without offering her support to either of her opponents in the hotly contested race.
“Here’s what we do next. Every day through November 3rd. We win this Senate seat and send Mike Rogers back to Florida for good,” McMorrow wrote in her announcement on X, referring to the expected GOP nominee.
“Whoever wins this primary on August 4th will have my full support,” she continued, declining to endorse either Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI) or Abdul El-Sayed.
Fundraising figures released at the end of the first quarter of the year showed Stevens trailing El-Sayed in fundraising but having the most cash on hand, at $3.4 million to El-Sayed’s $2.5 million. El-Sayed has held a slight lead in the latest polls.
Following McMorrow’s announcement, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Jewish Democrat, said the “choice is clear” and “wholeheartedly” issued her endorsement of Stevens.
Stevens also has the backing of other Democratic leaders including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and former Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI).
El-Sayed, meanwhile, is backed by leading progressives including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). Last week, the AIPAC-linked United Democracy Project super PAC, which has boosted Stevens with more than $10 million, issued its first negative ad against El-Sayed.
Sens. Bill Cassidy and Rand Paul, supporters of previous war powers efforts, changed their votes on the resolution, which had previously passed a procedural hurdle
Daniel Heuer/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Senator Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky and chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, during a confirmation hearing in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, June 17, 2026.
The Senate voted on Wednesday night to block a Democratic-led war powers resolution seeking to end military operations against Iran, after a heated meeting between President Donald Trump and Senate Republicans where he berated a handful of lawmakers over their votes in favor of a successful war powers resolution the previous day.
Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Rand Paul (R-KY), supporters of previous war powers efforts, changed their votes on the resolution on Wednesday, which had previously passed a procedural hurdle — Cassidy now voting no and Paul voting present. Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) again voted yes, while Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) voted no. The final vote was 50-47.
Cassidy, who engaged in a shouting match with Trump in the meeting over his recent war powers votes, told reporters after the meeting that he would not change his vote until he had been briefed on the war. Hours later, Cassidy received a private briefing on the war from Vice President JD Vance and White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff.
“I am reassured. I had my briefing. My criteria is met,” Cassidy said. “As long as I’m reassured that there’s honesty and that, as they’re depicting events, it’s playing out appropriately, I’m reassured. But again, you want to trust but verify.”
Cassidy had said earlier in the day that he did not believe the administration’s prosecution of the war was on track to achieve the goals it laid out. Following that conversation, Cassidy changed his tune.
“I think it’s plausible that they are achieving the objectives, as they laid it out,” Cassidy told Jewish Insider. He added that he wants to “see events transpire the way they depict them, but they had plausible explanations for how they’re achieving those objectives.”
Cassidy said he had passed a note to Witkoff, who attended the Senate meeting with Trump, asking him for a briefing, and the White House had called within the hour to set it up.
The Louisiana senator has emerged as a key swing vote since losing his primary to Trump-backed Rep. Julia Letlow (R-LA).
Paul, the earliest GOP vote in favor of war powers efforts, said his present vote came in deference to the administration’s negotiating strategy.
“My opinion on the debate over war and executive power has not changed and I have voted that way several times. But since hostilities seem to be over and the president asked me to give consideration to his negotiating position, I will do so,” Paul said. “My vote of present is a way to give the president more space and leverage to negotiate a lasting peace.”
The Maine senator said she learned to reject anti-Jewish hate at a young age, inspired by her World War II veteran father and her mother who quit a sorority for excluding Jewish students
Mark Makela/Getty Images
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) addresses the press on Nov. 6, 2022.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) reiterated her criticism of Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner and accused him and his supporters of antisemitism at an Orthodox Union event on Tuesday.
Speaking at the OU luncheon, Collins called out Platner for his Nazi tattoo, pointing to accounts by former romantic partners that he had described it as a Nazi symbol despite later denying that he knew what it was. She said that even though he covered up the tattoo on the campaign trail, “the stain remains.”
Collins also referenced comments from a Platner supporter who said she did not find the Nazi tattoo disqualifying but would find an Israeli tattoo to be a deal-breaker, which Collins said she found “even more distressing.”
She also repeated comments she made a day earlier on Fox News asserting that her support for Israel remains in spite of shifting political winds.
“Our support for Israel remains as strong as ever,” Collins said, to a standing ovation. “We must all stand with Israel. In my case, I learned that lesson at an early age.”
She said that her father, a World War II veteran, taught her from childhood the need to stand against evil. Collins said that her mother also taught her to reject antisemitism, noting that her mother quit her sorority in college after it rejected a fellow student because she was Jewish.
“The friendship that I share with the people of Israel is that which our true nation shares, a friendship that is anchored by common principles, a love of liberty and the courage to defend [them],” Collins said.
The GOP senator, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, also said that a major priority for her this year is to make the U.S.’ defunding of UNRWA permanent. She said that it “should not have been a close call” to cut off U.S. funding to the agency after its employees were revealed to be involved in the Oct. 7, 2023 attacks on Israel, but that she had to “fight” to add and extend that provision in recent funding bills.
Collins said that the rise in antisemitism since Oct. 7 has “revealed … the oldest hatred is not only still alive, but sicker than ever. Tragically, the prognos is has only worsened since then.”
She praised David Greene, the president of Colby College, in her home state, which she said had not seen the anti-Israel demonstrations and encampments that plagued other colleges. Greene told her that “the key is, you do not negotiate, you do not allow this to occur,” she recalled.
She said Greene had also told her that the protests at other schools were directed by radical professors, graduate assistants and outside agitators, rather than grassroots activities.
Collins said a member of her own congressional staff was assaulted at an encampment at the University of Pittsburgh for carrying an American and an Israeli flag, and that no action was taken against his attacker — something she described as a pattern under the prior presidential administration.
“I think it shows how much we need to do to make sure that our students are [equipped] with the truth,” Collins said.
Sens. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and Kevin Cramer (R-ND) also spoke at the OU event.
The resolution passed 50-48 with GOP Sens. Paul, Murkowski, Collins and Cassidy voting with Democrats in favor
Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) speaks to reporters after the weekly Senate policy luncheons at the U.S. Capitol on June 23, 2026 in Washington. Schumer spoke out against President Trump's Iran deal and a the need for the Senate to pass a War Powers Resolution regarding Iran.
The Senate voted on Tuesday to pass a House-passed war powers resolution directing the administration to withdraw U.S. forces from Iran — a congressional rebuke of the administration over the war in Iran — though legally its effects are likely to be largely symbolic.
The resolution passed by a 50-48 vote, with Republican Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) again voting in favor and Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) voting against it. Ultimately, GOP absences enabled the resolution to go forward.
But the resolution, now passed by both chambers, came in the form of a concurrent resolution, which is not submitted to the president and, based on past court precedent, is not seen as carrying the force of law — though a House Democratic aide argued to CNN that the measure would be binding.
Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and lead Democratic sponsor of the war powers resolution, insisted in a statement, “Regardless of what President Trump says, this measure is binding under the War Powers Resolution, and I will explore all legal avenues to ensure the Executive complies with the will of Congress.”
Unlike previous efforts, however, the concurrent resolution did not require other procedural votes by the Senate, allowing Democrats to take advantage of the Republican absences and move directly toward final passage to deliver a message of rebuke to the administration.
The Senate still has other war powers resolutions pending, including one which passed an initial procedural hurdle, but currently lacks the support to pass through an additional procedural vote and final passage with full attendance. That legislation, which comes in a different form as joint resolutions, would be presented to the president if passed and set up a potential veto or other legal fight.
Republicans warned that adopting the resolution would send a further signal to Iran that it does not need to negotiate or make any compromises with the U.S. as part of ongoing talks.
The Maryland senator also praised Graham Platner’s Senate candidacy, even as other leading Democrats have kept their distance
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) speaks at a campaign event for Maryland Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and Prince George's County Executive Angela Alsobrooks (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), a leading critic of Israel in the Senate, publicly confirmed for the first time this week, after visits to key primary states, that he is considering a 2028 presidential bid — and argued that criticism of Israel should be a key litmus test for the emerging field.
Van Hollen has become an increasingly outspoken and virulent voice against Israel in the Senate and taken trips to states that will play a pivotal role in the 2028 presidential primary, fueling speculation that he is scoping out a presidential run.
“I went to New Hampshire because I was invited, but I would say kind of kicking the tires a little bit,” Van Hollen said on the “On NOTUS” podcast this week.
Asked whether he thinks any Democratic presidential candidate will be viable without criticizing Israel and supporting conditioning aid to the Jewish state, Van Hollen responded, “I think a Democratic presidential candidate should believe in the United States’ foreign policy based on advancing our values and our interests. And if you want to advance our values, you cannot apply one set of standards just to our adversaries and another to our friends and be taken seriously in the world about it.”
“I think any credible Democratic presidential candidate has to be willing to hold the government of Israel accountable when it’s violating human rights and violating international law and violating US interests because the Israeli-Palestinian issue, conflict goes to the heart of so much of the instability that we’ve encountered and paid for in the United States over decades,” Van Hollen continued.
He also argued that any Biden-era officials who don’t “plainly acknowledge how wrong they were and make it clear that lessons have been learned and that they would follow a very different approach” toward Israel should not be able to serve in any future Democratic administration.
Van Hollen also defended Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner, the Democratic nominee who has drawn controversy for his Nazi tattoo, far-left views and numerous scandals and controversies, as “the candidate in that race who is fighting for working people” and “somebody who’s going to shape things up and actually respond to the pocketbook issues of the people of Maine.”
Armed Services Committee chair Roger Wicker broke his silence on Thursday, warning the deal would make Iran’s Obama-era payoff ‘look like a pittance’
Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-MS) arrives for a confirmation hearing in Dirksen building on Tuesday, May 13, 2025.
Senate Republicans continued on Thursday to air concerns about the U.S. memorandum of understanding with Iran, in some cases fueled further by Vice President JD Vance’s comments dismissing the effectiveness of U.S. sanctions and lambasting Israeli government officials who have objected to the deal.
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) — the chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services — issued a statement ripping into the agreement, saying he’s “concerned [it] negotiates away the victories of Operation Epic Fury in ways that are completely out of step with the president’s goals.” Wicker had for days told reporters he was “withholding comment” on the MOU.
He said that, even though the $300 billion reconstruction fund outlined in the deal is not coming from U.S. taxpayer money, it “would make Iran’s payoff under President [Barack] Obama’s 2015 deal look like a pittance by comparison” and that it “would be an error to force Israel to stand down against Hezbollah.”
He said he also opposes any sanctions relief or unfreezing of funds for Iran “in exchange for Iran’s mere agreement to negotiate for another 60 days. The Iranian regime has not renounced its ultimate goal — ‘Death to America, Death to Israel.’ The regime will invest every penny it receives to further that aim.”
But Wicker pointed ultimate blame for the final shape of the deal at the “intermediaries,” rather than Trump himself.
Wicker told reporters he expects to hear from Vance about the deal but that no briefings have yet been arranged or scheduled.
Reiterating a stance he expressed a day prior, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said, “History demonstrates giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to kill you is an exceptionally bad idea. So I hope we don’t do that.”
Asked about the comments by Vance — a potential candidate in the 2028 GOP presidential primary — Cruz, who mounted his own presidential bid a decade ago and is rumored to be considering a 2028 run, said, “I think the vice president can speak for himself.”
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) said that he plans to go through the agreement in detail to compare it to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action because “what we don’t want to do is repeat that mistake.”
Tillis rejected Vance’s comments that sanctions have not been effective. “You’ve seen all kinds of their behavior changes in reaction to sanctions,” Tillis told Jewish Insider. “To suggest it’s not working would suggest that broadly sanctions don’t work, and we all know that that’s just factually incorrect.”
He told JI that “clearly any sanctions that are subject to congressional approval, he needs to come to Congress. Pretty straightforward. They covered that on ‘Schoolhouse Rock.’”
Tillis, who is retiring, also called the deal a “very important moment” for Vance. “It’s definitely a two-edged sword. Coming up short’s probably not good for him, but it could be a great achievement for him.”
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) told JI he hadn’t heard Vance’s comments on sanctions, but he said that “it seems to me that there are billions of dollars that have been held from Iran, which has not gone to terrorist activities, and I think that is a good thing. So, with regard to that, it clearly had an effect. Whether or not it was completely effective is debatable.”
Rounds said he was concerned that Israel was not a party to the negotiations but “there’s an expectation somehow that there would be a limitation on activity going on in Lebanon that we’re not involved with at all, but that Israel is.”
He emphasized that “the Israeli government has a right to defend its people” from the yearslong ongoing attacks from Hezbollah, “and I don’t see that necessarily correctly addressed within this original memorandum. Perhaps there’ll be more meat on it in an actual agreement.”
The senator said he’s unsure whether the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which blocks the lifting of sanctions or unfreezing of funds for a congressional review period on any deal pertaining to Iran’s nuclear program, would be applicable, or what legislative steps would be involved if it were.
“We need to learn more about what [Trump’s] intent is and how permanent the two parties expect this to be,” Rounds said. “There’s a lot of questions we don’t have answers to yet, but it’s early in the process.”
He raised concerns about how the agreement would be enforced “particularly if you release all of their funds immediately, they’re allowed to do with it whatever they want. In the past, they’ve used that to fund terrorist activities. The first one that comes to mind is Hezbollah, which sits in Lebanon right now and has been attacking Israel relentlessly for years.”
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said that “everything I’ve heard about it causes me concern” and he believes the president agreed to the deal because he was “concerned about the midterm elections and gas prices and blockage of the Strait of Hormuz.”
“This gets that open, but I think he’s had to pay a very deal price to get that done, and I think we should be clear-eyed and realistic that this isn’t going to persuade the Iranian regime to go in peace,” Cornyn, who is retiring after being defeated by a Trump-backed primary challenger, said.
He said that the steps taken by U.S. military operations to degrade Iran’s ballistic missile program and military-industrial base and delay its nuclear program were positive, but “I think we ought to be realistic about where we are. It’s temporary. It’s certainly not a permanent solution.”
Cornyn said he does not believe that Trump was joking when he said on Wednesday that he would blame Vance if the deal goes awry, and that the outcome of the deal might affect Vance’s prospects in the 2028 presidential race.
Cornyn said he expects that Congress, in its oversight role, will be examining the release of sanctions and whether the administration has the ability to lift those sanctions unilaterally.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), the Senate Intelligence Committee chair who also had not yet commented on the deal, said on Thursday that he has “concerns” over the MOU, warning that “certain aspects of this deal are a step in the wrong direction.”
The Arkansas senator told Fox News’ “The Story with Martha MacCallum” that Trump “deserves enormous credit for making Iran weaker than it’s been in decades, and we need to make sure that we don’t squander the leverage that we’ve built.” Cotton said he wished that the president “had continued with Project Freedom when it was announced a couple months ago.”
He also called on Trump to “use our military to force the Strait open and to keep it open, in addition to reimposing the blockade in the event that “Iran doesn’t keep its end of the bargain.”
Cotton pointed to the immediate lifting of sanctions on Iran’s oil exports, suggesting the funding would go toward malign activities, and raised concerns about the long-term control of the Strait of Hormuz.
“There’s certain parts of this memorandum that are a bit vaguer about Iran’s ability to access up to $100 billion of frozen funds or whether Iran can impose tolls on the Strait of Hormuz after two months,” Cotton said. “We’ll need more explanation there. I hope President Trump won’t allow those things to happen.”
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) said that lawmakers had “very serious problems” with the JCPOA and the administration will need to come explain the deal because “I don’t want to see JCPOA 2.0.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) told JI that she expects to find out “a lot more about the real details and particulars in these next 30 days.”
The Alaska senator said Congress needs “to make sure that the way that the president and the United States are interpreting this is in sync with how Iran is interpreting this, and I’m not certain yet that we’re at that place.”
Murkowski said “they can’t tell me” how the sanctions relief and reconstruction funding will work “so I certainly have a lot of questions that have yet to be resolved, but I also appreciate that the agreement allows for this next 30 days to work through reaching it.”
Asked about Trump’s suggestion on Wednesday that he wasn’t opposed to Iran possessing ballistic missiles, Murkowski replied, “That wasn’t helpful.”
Murkowski responded affirmatively when pressed on if those types of comments from the president and senior administration officials gave her pause about what the final agreement could look like.
Sen. Jim Justice (R-WV) said that “if we don’t have absolute assurances” that Iran can never obtain a nuclear weapon “then we lose,” though he said that “there’s still work to be done” in further negotiations.
“If it were to come to pass that we still have all kinds of concerns and no assurances and everything else, then it’s not good at all,” Justice said. “We have to have control one way or another” of Iran’s nuclear materials.
He said he couldn’t address disputes with Israel about the deal directly but said “the Israelis have been wonderful allies, and we’re going to stay arm-in-arm with them, period.”
Democrats, meanwhile, continued to lambast the agreement.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) told JI the administration is “desperate” and “flailing” and criticized the exclusion of Israel from the negotiations given that it continues to face attacks from Hezbollah, from which he said it must defend itself.
He said the agreement’s reliance on the U.N. as an enforcement and verification mechanism also hurts Israel.
“How can Israel trust the U.N.? Working with Israel is simply not in their toolkit. With the hundreds of billions of dollars provided, the unfreezing of sanctions immediately, the lifting of the freeze on assets, I don’t know how Republicans who attacked us with the JCPOA are going to handle that,” Blumenthal said. “This is a regime that continues to call the United States ‘the Great Satan.’ I don’t know what they’re thinking.”
And, he argued, the agreement effectively requires nothing of Iran: “I know the vice president’s line has been, ‘They only get the benefit of the bargain if they keep their side of it,’ but there is no side of it for them. They’re under no obligations here. It keeps the status quo for nuclear arms, lifting sanctions, lifting the freeze on assets, the $300 billion dollars.”
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) called the deal “appalling, flawed, pathetic failure” but “the inevitable conclusion of a combination of never making the case to the American people, flawed strategic provision, lack of grasp of the regional dynamics. How many ways can I say bad, bad, bad.”
On the issue of sanctions, Coons told JI, “President Trump cut a horrible deal where he is giving to Iran an enormous amount of released assets that have been frozen, sanctions relief that will generate tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions, and this reconstruction fund In combination, this is a massive infusion of cash to the mullahs and the IRGC. History shows the mullahs will not primarily use this money to build health clinics and schools.”
He said that Vance’s criticisms of Israeli officials are part and parcel of his efforts to sell an unsatisfactory agreement.
“I think JD Vance has been tasked with trying to sell a really bad deal and he is being as aggressive as he possibly can in knocking down one of the more obvious critics — a country that has a lot to lose,” he added. “If their opposition to the JCPOA was in any way principled, then they have to criticize a deal that’s worse than the JCPOA.”
Coons pointed responsibility for countering the deal toward Republicans, emphasizing that Iran will use the funding it receives under the deal for malign purposes. The Delaware senator said that there are “some things” Congress can do including conduct oversight of the congressional sanctions that the deal seeks to lift.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) echoed colleagues in describing the agreement as an “unconditional surrender” by the U.S. ‘because we get nothing from this deal.”
“All the specific benefits go to Iran. We get vague promises for potentially in the future hundreds of billions of dollars,” Booker said. “We’re allowing an extreme, terrorist supporting regime, that’s more extreme than when we began this, that chant ‘Death to America,’ to have more resources to do more things. So this is perhaps one of the biggest presidential blunders and failures in the last 20 years.”
He said that whether Senate Republicans stand firm and refuse to allow the administration to lift sanctions requiring congressional approval “is going to be the big test.”
“Will they just roll over and lay down for him, or will they stand up and provide the kind of checks, balances, oversight, and accountability when it comes to Iran, that they should be doing?” Booker asked. “They have a lot of levers to pull on the Republican side, where they right now control the Senate and control the House.”
He did not address what Democrats plans’ or role might be.
In the House, pro-Israel Democrats are also outraged by the deal and vowed not to support when it comes before Congress, which they said it must under INARA.
Rep. Josh Gottheimer said he is “totally dumbfounded by this agreement, and, like many, in a state of disbelief,” adding that the U.S. “got nothing” and “not one core objective was meaningfully met.”
He predicted that the next phase of the deal will never come about, and said the U.S. is “selling out Israel” and “kowtowing to Hezbollah terrorists, by tying Israel’s hands in Lebanon.”
Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL) called it a “surrender agreement” and an “unacceptable capitulation without achieving any of our objectives” that will “facilitate the rebuilding” of Iran’s military and support for proxy groups.
“Unless the agreement is changed to actually close and permanently block Iran’s path to nuclear weapons, I will vote against it,” Schneider said.
Intelligence Committee Chair Tom Cotton said that Clayton’s scheduled Wednesday afternoon confirmation hearing would go on as scheduled unless Clayton doesn’t show up
Photo by John Lamparski/WireImage
Jay Clayton appears on "Mornings With Maria" on Fox Business in 2020. At the time, Clayton was serving as chairman of the SEC.
President Donald Trump upended an expedited effort to confirm Jay Clayton as director of national intelligence before the end of the week with a Wednesday morning Truth Social post announcing that he was “cancelling” Clayton’s planned confirmation hearing later that afternoon — but Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), the Intelligence Committee chairman, insisted the hearing would go on as scheduled unless Clayton fails to appear.
Though Trump doesn’t have the ability to unilaterally cancel a Senate hearing, he could instruct Clayton not to appear as scheduled. Senate lawmakers were rushing to confirm Clayton before the end of the week to prevent federal housing chief Bill Pulte from serving as acting DNI, a choice lawmakers on both sides of the aisle view as problematic and unqualified for the role.
“Jay Clayton is a pending nominee before the Intelligence Committee. We will proceed with his hearing as scheduled unless the president directs him not to appear or withdraws his nomination,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) said on X following Trump’s post.
Republicans have been trying to clear a path to rapidly confirm Clayton before Pulte is set to take over as acting DNI on Friday.
Confirming Clayton and blocking Pulte from the DNI role would also unlock Democratic support for renewing federal foreign surveillance authorities under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which lapsed last week amid Democratic opposition.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the vice chair of the Intelligence Committee, lambasted the “extraordinary display of dysfunction from a president who seems determined to turn America’s national security into a political bargaining chip.”
“At every turn, the president has injected more uncertainty into a process that should be focused on one thing: keeping the American people safe,” Warner continued. National security cannot be governed by social media post. The president’s latest intervention only underscores a simple reality: the biggest obstacle to resolving these issues has not been Senate Democrats or Senate Republicans. It has been the chaos and confusion coming from the White House itself.”
Trump asserted that “Dumocrats broke the Deal” on FISA and Pulte, and also demanded that James McDonald, who Trump said he would nominate to replace Clayton as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, be confirmed before Clayton is confirmed for DNI.
But McDonald’s nomination hasn’t yet been transmitted to the Senate, according to congressional records.
Trump also indicated that he would veto the FISA renewal unless Republicans attach the SAVE America Act, which aims to impose new national voter ID and proof of citizenship requirements at the ballot box and limit mail-in and online voter registration, to it — a proposal that cannot pass the 60-vote threshold in the Senate.
“To add a slight bit of intrigue but, for the Good of the Nation, and the People of our Country, I will not approve FISA without THE SAVE AMERICA ACT going along with it,” Trump said. “Not complicated, actually, the Republicans fell into a trap.”
The proposed restrictions come after top Senate lawmakers publicly expressed frustration in recent months with the LAF’s failure to take concrete steps to fully disarm Hezbollah
MAHMOUD ZAYYAT / AFP via Getty Images
Lebanese army forces set up a checkpoint at the entrance of the village of Ghandourieh in southern Lebanon on June 15, 2026, preventing people from crossing towards villages the Israeli military is believed to have deployed.
The Senate’s version of the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act proposes sweeping new conditions on U.S. support for the Lebanese Armed Forces. The proposed restrictions come after top Senate lawmakers publicly expressed frustration in recent months with the LAF’s failure to take concrete steps to fully disarm Hezbollah, and argued that the U.S. should not provide unconditional funding for the LAF.
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), the chair of the Armed Services Committee, which produces the NDAA, said in late April that “Congress should not support the LAF unless it acts to disarm Hezbollah completely — and immediately.”
Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee, echoed Wicker, adding that it was “well past time for the LAF to take tangible action to fully disarm Hezbollah and for the Lebanese government to follow through on long-promised economic reform. The era of complacency and unconditional bailouts must come to an end.”
Support for the LAF, which would be limited to no more than $36 million, is conditioned on the LAF’s work to disarm Hezbollah. No more than 5% of that funding can be provided until the administration certifies to Congress that Lebanon has outlawed Hezbollah’s activities and that the LAF is actively working to disarm Hezbollah, prevent the Iranian-backed group’s rearmament and prevent attacks on Lebanon’s neighbors — including Israel.
The administration would then be required to re-certify every 90 days to Congress that the LAF is continuing to act against Hezbollah to the full extent of its capabilities, with a mandatory suspension of aid if it cannot meet that certification.
The quarterly reports would also include specific data on the number of weapons seized from Hezbollah and other metrics regarding the LAF’s efforts to degrade Hezbollah, as well as the makeup and capacities of the LAF forces.
President Donald Trump on Tuesday publicly condemned Israel’s operations against Hezbollah, suggesting — in a move that baffled both lawmakers and experts — that Syria’s military could instead be called upon to deal with the Hezbollah threat.
The NDAA would block U.S. counterterrorism assistance to Syria until the administration can certify the Syrian government is taking action to demobilize, disarm and monitor foreign fighters and jihadists in the country, implement a system to “fairly integrate” the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces into the Syrian military and prevent attacks on minorities including Kurds and Druze.
The provision comes amid continued scrutiny on Capitol Hill of the Syrian government’s efforts to protect minorities after the U.S. withdrew sanctions on the Syrian government.
As previously reported, the NDAA, which was finalized last week but not released in full until Tuesday, includes a version of the FUTURES Act, which has become a hot-button issue in the context of the House version of the NDAA, seeking to centralize and expand existing defense collaboration efforts between the two partners.
But it also includes a second provision on joint development, requesting the administration provide Congress with a plan to establish a partnership between the U.S. and Israel on defense industrial priorities, with the goal of supporting the defense industrial bases in both countries, providing opportunities for industries in both countries to cooperate and collaborate and supporting defense development and startups in both countries.
The legislation additionally proposes boosting funding for cooperation on subterranean operations — previously billed as counter-tunnelling efforts — from $80 million to $100 million, and counter-drone programs from $70 million to $100 million. The bill also authorizes $1 million for cybersecurity cooperation with Israel.
That funding would still have to be approved separately in the appropriations process later this year.
The NDAA also includes two different provisions to enhance defense cooperation with both Israel and other Middle East allies.
One, the Abraham Accords Defense Cooperation Initiative, would establish a program to expand defense cooperation between the U.S. and the Abraham countries, to address various threats in the region. It encourages each country in the region to provide matching funds for the program.
The other, which pulls language from the OASIS in the Middle East Act, aims to develop a coordinated air- and missile-defense acquisition strategy alongside Israel, Abraham Accords members and other Middle East allies to ensure adequate resources to protect the U.S. and its allies in the event of future conflicts.
The provision further requires the administration to explain its work to replenish interceptor stockpiles that have reportedly been severely degraded in the war, assess the possibility for co-production with various Middle East allies of interceptor systems, consider an creating an air-defense stockpile in the Middle East and improve joint development and acquisition of low-cost interceptor options.
The NDAA, which provides formal congressional authorization for the Civil Military Cooperation Center overseeing the implementation of the ceasefire plan in Gaza, requires the administration to provide Congress with information on plans for and actual deployment of the International Security Force in Gaza and its involvement in disarming Hamas, as well as on granular, specific details on the amount and types of aid moving into Gaza.
Plans for the ISF have largely failed to materialize, and the force has not yet deployed inside Gaza, where efforts to disarm Hamas have stalled in light of the terrorist group’s intransigence.
Four Republicans again broke with their party, but absences handed the GOP a narrow 48-47 win
UNITED STATES - APRIL 30: From left, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, talk as they arrive for a vote in the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, April 30, 2025. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Despite having previously approved a similar motion, the Senate on Tuesday narrowly defeated a procedural vote on a war powers resolution to prevent further military action against Iran, as the administration moves forward in negotiations with Tehran.
The same four Senate Republicans — Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Rand Paul (R-KY) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) — voted to advance the resolution, but absences favored Republicans this time, defeating the resolution 48-47.
Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) was again the sole Democrat who voted against the effort.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), who led the previous war powers resolution that successfully advanced, explained to reporters that he hasn’t yet called up that resolution for further votes because he needs to secure one more vote in support to ensure passage.
“I would like to call up mine when I know I’ve got a win,” Kaine said. “I don’t yet have a fifth. I need a fifth vote. … I’ve been working some people to try to get that, but I haven’t gotten any solid commitments.”
He said that he’s still trying to persuade colleagues that, even if the war is paused now, it should not restart without congressional approval, and that Democrats still want to have weekly votes on the war. He said he’s hopeful that the current ceasefire could give some additional Republicans the leeway to vote for the effort.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), seen as a potential GOP swing vote, ultimately voted against the motion after telling reporters that the current uncertainty could warrant some involvement by Congress.
“I don’t even know what we’re doing right now. … Are we in a ceasefire, are we in an agreement that is basically a new agreement on a ceasefire? Are we working towards a real lasting agreement that may be subject to ratification of Congress?” Tillis said before the vote.
The North Carolina Republican said he would decline to take a firm position before hearing arguments on both sides of the issue.
“[If y]ou’ve got all that uncertainty, then maybe, if we do still think that the U.S. forces need to be put at risk and be kept there, then we should probably be talking about an authorization for the use of military force,” Tillis continued.
A source told JI that Republican leadership and the administration may seek to sidestep INARA review, at least for the current 60-day agreement with Iran
Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) speaks to the press on June 2, 2025 in Washington.
Some Republican senators said that the administration does not need to submit the recently signed 60-day memorandum of understanding with Iran to Congress for review and a potential vote under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, potentially sidestepping the first major opportunity for Congress to weigh in on the agreement.
Under INARA, the administration is required to promptly submit any deal with Iran relating to its nuclear program to Congress for review, with an opportunity for Congress to vote to reject the deal. But the administration may attempt to avoid that step, at least until a broader agreement is reached during the 60-day negotiating period — if one comes about.
A source familiar with the situation said Republican leadership is in discussions with the administration about what is included in the MOU — senior Republicans have said publicly they have not yet been informed — but they are collectively moving toward a view that the MOU is an agreement for further negotiations, not a deal on Iran’s nuclear program in itself, thereby sidestepping INARA for the time being.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Some senators offered a similar view on Monday evening.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) said that he’s “not aware of any precedent” for Congress to vote on an MOU.
“This is like a template for further negotiations,” Hawley said. “I don’t even know constitutionally if we have a role on that.”
Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) said that he does not believe that a congressional vote on the MOU is necessary. He also went further, emphasizing that even under INARA, there is no requirement for Congress to vote on any Iran agreement.
“People may have different points of view of whether or not we should or we shouldn’t, but there’s certainly nothing required,” Schmitt said.
Pressed on why lawmakers wouldn’t want an opportunity to vote on the deal, Schmitt responded, “on whether or not a president can cease conflict in that way?”
“I don’t think it’s necessary,” he continued. “I’m just stating the law. … I will say that I do think that there are certain people in this building that want to undermine this, there’s no doubt about that. … You have the camp that wants us to lose, and then you have a camp that wants a forever war. President Trump’s not in either one of those camps.”
Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) said that “if there’s a final” deal with Iran, he believes Congress should have the opportunity to review and vote on it, but that he does not believe that such a vote is necessary for the current MOU.
“When there’s a final agreement — if there’s a final agreement — just like the JCPOA Congress should be able to weigh in,” Kennedy said.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), who said he was involved in crafting INARA during the Obama administration, said that whether the MOU needs to be submitted is a question of what it includes.
“If the details are opening the ports, opening the straits and ceasefire, but let’s talk about the nuclear program — I don’t know that that would have to be submitted,” Kaine said. “If the details that we hear Friday include some nuclear elements, and maybe we’ll talk about some other ones down the road — well then it might have to come to us. You just have to see whether the deal that is announced Friday includes an agreement on any of the elements of [their nuclear program].”
He emphasized, however, that meeting the 60-vote threshold in the Senate to pass a joint resolution of disapproval under INARA to block a deal would be difficult given current political dynamics around the war.
Others, however, are more eager for congressional scrutiny and even Senate ratification of the deal as a treaty.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) said that he hopes the U.S. doesn’t “make the mistake Obama made [with the original nuclear deal]. We had an agreement that never really got ratified by Congress, didn’t have a lot of visibility, and I think that’s a mistake.”
Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) emphasized that any lasting agreement would need to be submitted to Congress.
“If it’s going to be long lasting, you’ve got to pass law, and that was what President Obama figured out: he could make an executive agreement, but the next president just turns it off,” Lankford said. “The president has the power to be able to negotiate foreign policy. He is the person who speaks for the country on foreign policy issues, but lasting agreements that last beyond that president have to be put in statute.”
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) also said that if the deal is strong, it should be submitted to Congress for ratification as a treaty. “The JCPOA was torn apart, taken apart, because it could not meet that standard,” Rounds said.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), asked if the Senate should vote on the MOU or only the subsequent negotiated agreement said, “It’s the law. Any nuclear deal with Iran has to be voted on. There is no way that we will not review a deal.”
The Senate majority leader also said the deal triggers requirements for the administration to provide Congress with the opportunity to review the agreement under INARA
Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images
Sen. Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) calls on reporters following the weekly Senate Republican caucus policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol on January 14, 2025 in Washington, DC. Senators spoke about the Laken Riley Act which was named after a nursing student who was murdered in February 2024 by Jose Ibarra, a migrant from Venezuela who crossed the border in September 2022, that could give state attorney generals far-reaching veto power over federal immigration policy.
With scant details provided by the Trump administration about the contours of the peace deal with Iran, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said on Monday afternoon that he doesn’t yet know enough about the administration’s deal with Iran to determine whether it is a good deal that will prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
“I don’t know enough about it to say,” Thune told reporters. “I think the issues are going to be compliance, and how you can enforce that, and what are the financial incentives that the Iranians have from our country, and what are they conditioned upon.”
The South Dakota Republican said that a positive deal would include financial incentives that are conditioned upon Iran winding down its nuclear program, the disposal of Iran’s enriched uranium and Tehran giving up its capacity to have a nuclear program in the future.
Thune also indicated that he believes the deal should be submitted to Congress for review under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act.
“There are some requirements that are triggered because of the nuclear components of the deal, in terms of notification or informing Congress,” Thune said. “I know there is probably some expectation that there may be a vote at some point, whether that’s on a resolution of disapproval or something. We’ll see. I just don’t know enough about it yet. And I don’t think even the people who follow this stuff closely up here know that much.”
The administration hasn’t publicly commented on the issue of INARA yet, and has offered varying timelines for when it might release the text of the agreement. In media appearances, Vice President JD Vance has been framing specific nuclear issues as part of the next round of talks, rather than the current MOU, which could give the administration an avenue to attempt to dodge INARA review.
Thune said that “somebody” from the administration, whether that be Vance or other officials, “will need to” come to the Hill to brief members.
“For sure, our members are going to have a lot of questions about it,” Thune said.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), the No. 2 Senate Republican, indicated he was similarly in the dark about the agreement.
“I haven’t seen anything from the president in terms of what’s in it. I’ve seen some press reports,” Barrasso told reporters. “I want to see what’s actually in it and I congratulate the president for his continued efforts.”
But asked whether he was concerned that the deal would be an effective surrender to Iran in providing sanctions relief, Barrasso rejected the idea out of hand.
“President Trump is never, ever going to do what you just suggested,” Barrasso said. “He’s not going to accept a deal that doesn’t eliminate nuclear weapons, isn’t enforceable, isn’t verifiable and doesn’t take Iran completely out of what they’ve been doing to try to undermine and attack us for the last 47 years.”
Rep. Dan Goldman said that ‘words of condemnation are no longer enough’ and that there has been a ‘systematic failure’ by Congress to address rising antisemitism since Oct. 7
Reps. Dan Goldman (D-NY) and Mike Lawler (R-NY) are leading 28 colleagues in introducing a House version of the Jewish American Security Act, the package of antisemitism-related legislation introduced by Sens. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and James Lankford (R-OK) last month in the Senate.
The bill includes a proposal for significant increases in security funding, new oversight and administrative measures to address antisemitism on college campuses and new transparency requirements for social media companies relating to antisemitism online.
The legislation is being co-sponsored by Reps. Grace Meng (D-NY), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Maria Salazar (R-FL), Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), Rudy Yakym (R-IN), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Marc Veasey (D-TX), Don Bacon (R-NE), Haley Stevens (D-MI), Michael McCaul (R-TX), Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY), Laura Gillen (D-NY), Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ), Jake Auchincloss (D-MA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Dan Meuser (R-PA), Brad Schneider (D-IL), Tom Barrett (R-MI), Jen Kiggans (R-VA), Greg Landsman (D-OH), David Kustoff (R-TN), Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Tom Suozzi (D-NY), Randy Weber (R-TX), Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-MI) and John Moolenaar (R-MI).
“Words of condemnation are no longer enough,” Goldman said in a statement. “Since the October 7th attacks, there has been a systematic failure in Congress and in our communities to counter the threat posed by surging antisemitism across this country.”
Goldman, a co-chair of the House antisemitism task force, said the bill would change that pattern: “Whether on campus, at synagogues, or online — the Jewish American Security Act will provide the tools necessary to help secure our at-risk communities to practice their faith without fear. American Jews cannot be asked to bear this burden alone. As Americans, we must stand shoulder to shoulder with those under siege by hate.”
Lawler, who is also the lead sponsor of the long-stalled Antisemitism Awareness Act, said in a statement that by providing additional resources for the Nonprofit Security Grant Program, the bill would help safeguard constitutionally protected religious freedom and bolster Jewish institutions against attacks.
“This bill also delivers critical protections for Jewish students on college campuses through stronger Title VI enforcement, requires greater transparency from online platforms on antisemitic content, and establishes key threat assessments,” Lawler said. “We must act decisively so Jewish Americans can feel safe in their schools, synagogues, and online.”
The legislation is supported by a wide range of Jewish groups across the religious and political spectrum.
“[A]ntisemitism remains a serious threat to the safety and security of the American Jewish community. A piecemeal approach to combat this scourge of [antisemitism] is no longer sufficient. The Jewish American Security Act is a serious and comprehensive federal response to this epidemic of hate,” Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, said in a statement. “We are grateful to Congressmen Goldman and Lawler for championing this bill in the House and showing that keeping Jewish Americans safe is a genuine bipartisan priority.”
Eric Fingerhut, the CEO of the Jewish Federations of North America, told Jewish Insider in a brief interview that, given the support in both the House and Senate and the Jewish community, “there’s never really been something like this at this level of comprehensiveness on Jewish security, with all the Jewish organizations working together.”
“People care, but they just don’t realize how bad it’s been. They don’t realize what’s happened in the last year. They don’t understand how Temple Israel was almost a disaster that would have changed the country,” Fingerhut continued. “This is really an important moment and we are all over this. There’s nothing that’s a higher priority.”
He said that if the bill passes, “we really have something that will make a difference for the Jewish community, which has been the target of a serious domestic terror crisis over this last year. So we’re grateful and we’re ready to work.”
American Jewish Committee CEO Ted Deutch said in a statement that Americans should not need security to pray or be afraid to leave their homes and interact in their communities, “yet, that is exactly what Jews in this country are experiencing every day.”
“We are at an inflection point. Surging antisemitism is not just a threat to the Jewish community; it is a crisis for our democracy and the values we cherish as Americans — pluralism, religious freedom, and the promise of equal protection,” Deutch said. “We thank Representatives Goldman and Lawler for their leadership and demonstrating that confronting this hatred is not a political issue, but a moral obligation.”
Amy Spitalnick, the CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, said that antisemitic violence “demands investments in a sustained, whole-of-government and whole-of-society response.”
“The Jewish American Security Act helps us to meet that need by focusing on tools that we know work,” Spitalnick said. “A truly inclusive American democracy requires Jewish safety — and so too does our safety as Jews depend on protecting our democratic institutions and values and ensuring the safety and rights of each and every community.”
Nathan Diament, the executive director of the Orthodox Union Advocacy Center, said that the organization “strongly supports” the bill and that the “unprecedented wave of antisemitism demands an unprecedented response by our government,” including increasing NSGP funding to $1 billion.
Rabbi Jonah Pesner, the director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, said that “the need for meaningful steps to bolster security and the fight against hate is vital.”
“The Jewish American Security Act strengthens the government tools and funding that will be available to help us meet this moment and uphold the American commitment to religious freedom,” Pesner said.
William Daroff, the CEO of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, praised the bipartisan support for the legislation as well as the broad consensus around it in the Jewish community, urging the bill’s quick passage.
“It is deeply encouraging to see this bill come together with bipartisan, bicameral support at a time when that kind of consensus is all too rare. There is real meaning in Republicans and Democrats joining around the shared responsibility to protect Jewish Americans,” Daroff said.
“It is encouraging to see real consensus across Jewish organizations. Since October 7, engagement is up and coordination is stronger. That unity is both needed and significant.”
In his victory speech, Platner railed against the political establishment and criticized U.S. wars in the Middle East
Sophie Park/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Graham Platner, Democratic Senate candidate for Maine, arrives to speak during a Fighting Oligarchy event in Portland, Maine, on May 25, 2026.
Maine Democrats rallied behind scandal-plagued oyster farmer and military veteran Graham Platner as their Senate nominee against Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) in Tuesday’s primary, turning to a left-wing outsider running against the political and institutional establishment as its standard-bearer for the general election.
Platner — whose controversies, including his now-covered Nazi tattoo and abuse allegations, have unnerved many Democrats — will be a political test over whether his brand of progressive populism can win over swing voters in a state critical to the Democrats’ hopes of winning back the Senate.
“In trying so hard to understand me, [the media] failed to understand that this is not about me at all. This is a movement about us, about the far too many, working far too hard and struggling far too much,” Platner said in his victory speech.
Attacking “forever wars,” Platner railed against the Trump administration’s war in Iran, and slammed Collins for “closing hospitals while using our tax dollars to destroy them halfway around the world.” (The line was an apparent attack against Israel’s targeting of Hamas terror infrastructure that was often lodged in medical facilities during the war in Gaza.)
Platner won about 72% of the primary vote despite Gov. Janet Mills remaining on the ballot, a solid enough showing amid all the controversies that should mute any calls for him to drop out of the race. In a statement on Platner’s victory, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chair Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) reiterated their support for the nominee: “In November, Maine voters will elect Graham Platner, and we will win a Senate majority.”
Mills, for her part, did not mention Platner at all in her statement about the election results.
The most recent polls in the race, conducted as Platner’s scandals hit the news, suggest a highly competitive matchup between Collins and Platner. Maine is the only state Trump lost in the 2024 presidential election that is represented by a Republican in the Senate, but Platner’s personal baggage is complicating the party’s path to victory.
Collins, meanwhile, is one of the most politically resilient senators, winning reelection even when the political environment for her party has been less than favorable.
Platner was surrounded by mostly older women as he delivered his victory speech, a critical constituency for him to win in the general election in the state with the oldest median population, especially given the allegations of abuse towards several ex-girlfriends.
In other primary news on Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) coasted to renomination, though he only won 58% of the GOP vote against weak competition.
In his victory speech, Graham railed against Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), two isolationist, anti-Israel GOP lawmakers who left or were ousted from Congress. “What did we prove tonight? That South Carolina is Trump country, not Massie country. We proved tonight that nobody gives a damn what Marjorie Taylor Greene thinks about who to vote for in South Carolina,” Graham said.
In South Carolina’s governor’s race, Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette, who was endorsed by President Donald Trump, will face state Attorney General Alan Wilson in a runoff for the nomination. Reps. Ralph Norman (R-SC) and Nancy Mace (R-SC) lagged well behind in the primary, with Mace’s fifth-place finish serving as a disappointing conclusion to her congressional career.
The AIPAC-affiliated super PAC is touting Stevens’ record fighting for the auto industry, opposing Medicare cuts and working to cap insulin prices in Congress
Andrew Roth/Sipa USA
Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI) speaks at the Michigan Democratic Party Endorsement Convention in Detroit, Mich., on April 19, 2026.
United Democracy Project, the super PAC affiliated with AIPAC, is spending $2 million on an initial ad buy this week to boost Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI) in the Democratic primary for Michigan’s open Senate seat, a UDP spokesperson confirmed to Jewish Insider on Tuesday.
The new TV ad, which calls Stevens “a proven fighter for Michigan,” touts her past role as chief of staff to President Barack Obama’s auto task force, support for capping insulin prices and efforts “fighting back against” President Donald Trump’s “Medicare cuts.”
“She’s a fighter for Michigan families on affordability and jobs,” Patrick Dorton, a spokesperson for UDP, said of Stevens, a moderate pro-Israel Democrat. “We are going to show that on these ads,” he said in a statement to JI.
UDP is also spending $300,000 on radio and mail ads, Dorton said of the group’s first investment in the race. He was unable to share how much UDP intends to spend in the primary, which takes place on Aug. 4.
The spending comes as AIPAC is viewed as a lightning rod in Michigan’s closely contested Democratic Senate primary, where one of Stevens’ top rivals, Abdul El-Sayed, a vocal far-left critic of Israel, has accused her of being beholden to donors from the pro-Israel group. Mallory McMorrow, a state senator, has also vowed to reject campaign contributions from AIPAC.
In contrast with other races where UDP has relied on shell PACs that allow it to shield its involvement until after a primary has concluded, the group is spending under its own name in Michigan, which is home to a sizable Jewish community.
Sen. James Lankford said the bill would help ensure ‘Israel and our partners have what they need before the next attack comes, not after’
Tom Brenner/Getty Images
Birds fly near the Pentagon
Sens. Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Cory Booker (D-NJ) and James Lankford (R-OK) are set to introduce a bill on Thursday directing the Pentagon to develop a coordinated air- and missile-defense acquisition strategy with Israel, Abraham Accords members and other Middle East allies.
The Optimizing Acquisition Strategies for Integrated Security (OASIS) in the Middle East Act, which expands on existing legislative and administrative efforts to establish a coordinated air and missile defense system throughout the Middle East to protect the U.S. and its partners, would aim to ensure that the necessary resources are in place to protect the U.S. and its allies in future conflicts, sponsors said.
It builds on past legislation sponsored by the co-chairs of the Abraham Accords Caucus, including the DEFEND Act, and comes ahead of the Senate’s markup of the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act. Previous Abraham Accords caucus projects have been incorporated into past years’ NDAAs.
“Iran’s reckless and destabilizing behavior underscores why we must work together to ensure we have sufficient air and missile defense resources to respond to Iranian aggression and keep our allies, like Israel, safe,” Rosen said in a statement, referring to Iran and its proxies’ attacks throughout the region. “Our bipartisan bill will provide a clear framework to support DOD’s efforts to develop an integrated air and missile defense acquisition strategy for the region.”
Lankford said that Iran’s “aggression cannot go unanswered.”
“The OASIS in the Middle East Act makes sure the Department of War has a coordinated strategy so Israel and our partners have what they need before the next attack comes, not after,” Lankford continued. “Standing with our allies is not optional; it is a core American commitment, and this bill ensures we back that commitment up with real resources and real strategy.”
Donald Blome was tapped to serve as assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, which acts as the main advisor on foreign policy in the region
AFP via Getty Images
The U.S. Embassy headquarters in Riyadh is pictured on March 3, 2026, after it was hit by drone strikes earlier.
The Trump administration on Monday sent a fresh slate of diplomatic nominations to the Senate for approval. But noticeably absent was a full-throated push to fill critical vacancies across the Middle East and North Africa, even as the Iran conflict has increased the need for coordination and dialogue in the region.
The newest list of nominees included only two names for the MENA region: Donald Blome, tapped to serve as assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs — a role that acts as the principal advisor on U.S. foreign policy across the region — and Nick Oberheiden, nominated to be U.S. ambassador to Egypt.
The lack of attention to Middle East ambassadorships underscores a broader staffing vacancy first reported by The Wall Street Journal in May, which noted that more than 100 U.S. ambassador posts remain unfilled under the current administration, including in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Iraq and Kuwait.
Experts told Jewish Insider that the administration is rapidly running out of time to fill these vacancies and implement its preferred candidates before the midterm elections potentially change the makeup of Congress and threaten to leave the president with a less cooperative Senate.
Analysts have suggested that the vacancies may reflect a deliberate strategic preference, noting that President Donald Trump has bypassed traditional bureaucratic channels and instead relied on his immediate inner circle — including White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner — to spearhead high-level engagement and negotiations in the region.
Even so, several foreign policy analysts have argued that leaving these senior posts vacant is an unwise strategy that risks eroding U.S. influence and diplomacy at a time of conflict and pivotal regional realignment.
If Trump seeks to fill these posts, it will likely be in the administration’s interest to do so before the end of the current Congress
(AFP via Getty Images)
The US Embassy headquarters in Riyadh is pictured on March 3, 2026, after it was hit by drone strikes.
We reported earlier this month on the series of vacancies in key ambassador-level posts throughout the Middle East — in countries including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Iraq and Kuwait. A senior State Department post overseeing Middle East issues also remains vacant, after the previous nominee was blocked by lawmakers.
At this point, time is running short for President Donald Trump to fill any of those vacant posts before the confirmation process potentially becomes more difficult in the Senate after the midterm elections.
Processing the nominations will take time: The chamber is set to be out of session for significant portions of the next few months. And there will be various other critical bills — including government funding, the annual defense bill and a potential third reconciliation package, to process on the Senate floor. Even ahead of floor proceedings, the vetting process in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can, itself, take months before nominees appear for a confirmation hearing.
If Trump seeks to fill these posts, it will likely be in the administration’s interest to do so before the end of the current Congress, as GOP control of the Senate for the final two years of Trump’s term is not assured, and even if Republicans retain the majority, it could be with an even smaller margin.
It’s not just Democrats who have proven to be an obstacle to some of the administration’s picks. Amer Ghalib, Trump’s original nominee to be ambassador to Kuwait, was blocked by Republicans over his history of antisemitism, among other issues. And Joel Rayburn, tapped for a top Middle East job in the State Department, was blocked by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who also slowed down proceedings for U.N. Ambassador Mike Waltz.
That said, it’s not clear whether the administration will prioritize filling these vacancies. Earlier this month, experts told Jewish Insider that the White House has seemed content to vest responsibility for broad Middle East portfolios within a tight circle of personal allies of the president, including White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner and Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack — whose role has particularly concerned some Republicans. Many experts have argued that leaving the positions open is unwise and risks harming U.S. influence and diplomacy in the region.
State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott told JI that “the department has confidence in our ability to communicate with our counterparts around the world and advance the national interest.”
A State Department official claimed that the Trump administration is on track to have more nominees confirmed in the first two years of Trump’s second term than the Biden administration, and praised the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for working to promptly confirm its nominees. The official also noted that the State Department had reestablished a committee to review potential career foreign service officers who could be elevated to ambassadorial posts.
Elliott Abrams, who served as U.S. envoy to Iran during the first Trump administration, however, warned that it might be “too late” to clear the nominations. He added that “it does not seem that the administration is very concerned” with the issue.
“Normally any administration would try to fill as many ambassadorial posts as possible before the August recess. But it is a little late, because in order to do that you have to have people cleared, formally nominated, go through hearings, be voted out of committee and then come to the floor for a vote,” Abrams said. “I doubt the administration will rush to get ambassadors in place now, because it just does not seem to be a very high priority for the president.”
Alexander Gray, who served as chief of staff on the National Security Council in Trump’s first administration, suggested that the White House should prioritize advancing qualified nominees for ambassadorships and criticized Democrats for what he described as a “long history of stymying President Trump’s nominations, regardless of whether they are in the majority or the minority.”
“The administration should continue to prioritize sending qualified ambassadors aligned with the president’s agenda to strategically significant countries, and pressuring Senators to confirm them expeditiously,” Gray said. “Historically, presidents received considerable deference in the confirmation of ambassadors. President Trump and Senate Republicans should demand similar treatment today.”
Other Trump allies argued that filling the ambassadorships is less critical, doubling down on the belief that the administration’s current approach of running Middle East policy through Trump’s inner circle is effective.
“In this region, trusted relationships, direct lines of communication and confidence from the president matter more than whether an ambassador is in place,” Jason Greenblatt, who served as White House Middle East envoy in the first Trump administration, said. “The leadership and senior diplomats in Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar have strong and trusted relationships with President Trump and with the group doing much of the day-to-day work, including Steve Witkoff, Secretary [of State Marco] Rubio, Vice President Vance, and Jared Kushner. That group has President Trump’s deep trust and direct access to him. That remains true regardless of how Senate politics develops.”
Craig will be facing off against Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan in the state’s August Senate primary
Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN) arrives for a vote in the U.S. Capitol on Thursday, March 26, 2026.
Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN), a moderate Democrat running for Minnesota’s open Senate seat, said on Wednesday that she would not seek the support of the state Democratic Party at its convention being held this weekend — effectively ceding that endorsement to Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan, her left-wing opponent.
Craig, who will still run in the Aug. 11 primary, said “the DFL endorsement process just doesn’t reflect the full scope of the party that we are and the purple state that we have become,” referring to the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, Minnesota’s Democratic affiliate, which was already expected to back Flanagan.
“Most Minnesotans don’t have the luxury of choosing a sub-caucus over a Saturday soccer game with their kids. Most Minnesotans can’t choose a convention over a closing shift. And most Minnesotans can’t put a delegate vote over driving their dad to a doctor’s appointment,” she said in a press conference while criticizing the DFL’s endorsement process.
In a statement, a spokesperson for Flanagan’s campaign countered that “DFLers overwhelmingly consolidated behind” the lieutenant governor “because they’re hungry for a leader who will stand up to corporate power, not bend to Republicans, and fight unapologetically for working people.”
Last month, Craig’s campaign called on the DFL to launch a formal investigation into a series of alleged instances of antisemitic activity among delegates in advance of its state convention, which has navigated mounting intraparty divisions over Israel.
The Michigan Senate candidate questioned how Israel being a Jewish state is ‘consistent with any form of liberal values that we say we believe in here in the United States’
Evan Cobb for The Washington Post via Getty Images
Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed speaks with customers and barbers at Blazin Wade Cuts in Grand Rapids, Michigan, on Saturday, Feb. 21, 2026.
Abdul El-Sayed, the far-left Democratic candidate for Michigan’s Senate seat, said at an event with Jewish supporters last week that he struggles to answer questions about whether he believes Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state.
At his “Jews for Abdul” event last week in Pontiac, Mich., a recording of which was obtained by Jewish Insider, El-Sayed, in response to a question from an audience member about him sidestepping inquiries about Israel’s right to exist, said, “I often struggle with the question that people ask in this particular scenario, because what they now ask is, ‘Do you believe in the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state,’ which, to me, forces the question of a definition of what a Jewish state means.”
SCOOP | Abdul El-Sayed, the far-left Democratic candidate for Michigan’s Senate seat, said at an event with Jewish supporters last week that he struggles to answer questions about whether he believes Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state.
— Jewish Insider (@jewishinsider) May 27, 2026
“I often struggle with the… pic.twitter.com/ugjbXgxUvr
El-Sayed continued: “I need folks who want to ask me that question [to explain] what it is that they mean by that, and how that is consistent with any form of liberal values that we say we believe in here in the United States.”
He accused Israel of “bypassing” the issue of Palestinian rights and maintaining a Jewish majority in Israel by implementing apartheid in the West Bank, east Jerusalem and Gaza, and said that the question of Israel’s right to exist overlooks “the rights of people who’ve been displaced by Israeli action” dating back to 1948.
He said that U.S. support is “funding leadership” in Israel that is opposed to a two-state solution while Palestinians do not have a voice in that conversation, and said “it’s not actually our job to decide what the peace looks like there.”
“[Israel] exists as it stands, but nobody ever asked me about the right of Palestine to exist, because it doesn’t exist. And so I just push back on the characterization here,” El-Sayed said.
MORE EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: Abdul El-Sayed says “I need folks who want to ask me that question [to explain] what it is that they mean by that, and how that is consistent with any form of liberal values that we say we believe in here in the United States.”
— Jewish Insider (@jewishinsider) May 27, 2026
Read more:… pic.twitter.com/8kaWUqwYCK
El-Sayed’s candidacy, positions and affiliations — particularly his campaigning with streamer Hasan Piker, who has repeatedly shared antisemitic sentiments and support for terrorism — has drawn concern from the sizable Jewish community in Michigan and nationally.
Photos from the event shared by El-Sayed’s campaign appear to show around a few dozen people in the audience, at least one of whom — who raised the question about Israel’s right to exist — said she was not Jewish.
Moreno said at an event commemorating Jewish American Heritage Month that he would push for the SACRED Act to be passed by unanimous consent in the coming days
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
U.S. Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH) participates in a Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee hearing in the Russell Senate Office Building on January 28, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH) said Wednesday that he plans to call on the Senate to pass the SACRED Act, legislation imposing restrictions on protests around synagogues and other religious institutions, by unanimous consent.
The effort could be derailed by opposition from any one lawmaker, but highlights the momentum and desire by some on Capitol Hill to pass “buffer zone” legislation or other measures to combat antisemitism, which Congress has struggled to do on several occasions since Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel and the ensuing spike of antisemitism.
“’I’m going to get the SACRED Act done,” Moreno said at a breakfast event held on the Hill by Jewish organizations commemorating Jewish American Heritage Month. “My plan is in the next day or two to put the SACRED Act on the floor of the United States Senate with unanimous consent, get that passed.”
The SACRED Act, which was introduced in late April in the House by Reps. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) and Max Miller (R-OH), would create criminal and civil penalties for individuals who attempt to intimidate or obstruct someone to prevent them from entering or exiting a place of worship, within 100 feet of a religious institution.
A Senate version of the bill has not yet been introduced. Republicans and outside advocates are also working on alternative buffer zone legislation that would likely take a different approach than Suozzi’s bill.
The breakfast event was organized by the Combat Antisemitism Movement, the Jewish Federations of North America, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the Weitzman Museum of Jewish American History.
Other attendees included Sen. David McCormick (R-PA) and Reps. David Kustoff (R-TN), Haley Stevens (D-MI), Tim Kennedy (D-NY), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Wesley Bell (D-MO), Kim Schrier (D-WA), Brad Schneider (D-IL), Randy Weber (R-TX), Don Bacon (R-NE), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Dan Goldman (D-NY), Rick Allen (R-GA) and Randy Fine (R-FL).
Sam Salz, one of the first Orthodox Jewish NCAA Division I football players, was the keynote speaker.
Bacon, who is retiring at the end of his term, said that he’s concerned about the rising antisemitism on both sides, including on the right within the Church.
He said that some are rejecting and twisting scripture “just like Nazi Germany did in the 1930s and just like we’ve seen throughout history, where we’ve seen antisemitism using the Bible to condone it.”
Making reference to Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), he called it “just wrong” for Massie to blame Israel for his loss in his concession speech on Tuesday, also condemning Democratic Texas candidate Maureen Galindo, who has espoused a range of virulently antisemitic sentiments.
The Jewish American Security Act addresses security threats, antisemitism on campus and online antisemitism
U.S. Senate
Sens. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and James Lankford (R-OK)
Sens. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and James Lankford (R-OK) on Tuesday introduced the Jewish American Security Act, a broad new effort by the lawmakers, who co-chair the Senate antisemitism task force, to address antisemitism across multiple sectors of American society.
Similar legislation is also expected to be introduced in the House.
The bill, which has widespread support from all corners of Jewish leadership, including all major religious denominations and political organizations on both sides of the aisle, contains various provisions aimed at increasing security for Jewish communities through additional funding and federal resources.
Key provisions include: additional security assistance and improvements to security grant programs for Jewish communities; addressing antisemitism on college campuses through new federal oversight measures including a federal official to handle campus antisemitism; and addressing the spread of antisemitism online by requiring new transparency reports from social media companies, among a range of related steps in each category.
Rosen, leaders from the Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee and BBYO International and local leaders whose communities have been impacted by antisemitic violence in recent years spoke in favor of the bill at a Jewish Federations of North America press conference on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. JFNA activists are on Capitol Hill this week meeting with more than 200 lawmakers to advocate for the bill and other legislation.
Rosen called the bill an “aggressive and comprehensive” response to antisemitism in the U.S. which will “help keep Jewish students safe, will help secure Jewish community institutions and we will help fight antisemitism online.”
She acknowledged that the path ahead is “not going to be easy” but emphasized that “it’s not an option for our government to not do more to fight antisemitism.”
Lankford emphasized the impacts of antisemitic violence on individual Jews and communities in a statement on the bill.
“These are not just numbers, these are real stories impacting real people. Jewish students being targeted on campuses. Synagogues being vandalized. People being attacked in the streets simply because of their faith and heritage,” Lankford said. “That is not who we are as a nation, and we unequivocally condemn antisemitism in all its forms. Every American deserves to live their faith freely. That is worth fighting for.”
Rosen told Jewish Insider later in the day that she and Lankford had been working to craft the bill for the past year, and had taken a range of input on the legislation. She said she and Lankford had learned from past legislative fights that to garner strong bipartisan support “you have to be very specific” and targeted in how legislation is crafted.
She said the new bill is focused on combating domestic antisemitism across three of the areas that have been epicenters of the recent rise in antisemitism since Oct. 7.
“I think it’s a good, solid bill and I believe that we crafted it in a way to get that good bipartisan support,” Rosen said. “We’re not going to solve every problem, but you have to start with something and work from there, and hopefully we build on that success.”
“Antisemitism we know is a canary in the coal mine. It starts with the Jews, it doesn’t end with the Jews,” she said.
“This bill that we wrote, we meant it to not be so prescriptive,” Rosen continued.” When we do things on college campuses, it’s going to help all students. When we do things in houses of worship, it’s not just for synagogues, it’s for all houses of worship. And when we start looking and analyze some of these algorithms online, it will probably inform us about some of the other algorithms, probably the same algorithms that are taking people down that hateful rabbit hole.”
Asked after the press conference about the path forward for the bill, and how advocates could avoid the same pitfalls that befell other efforts to combat antisemitism since Oct. 7, JFNA CEO Eric Fingerhut said that Jewish community groups took lessons from previous fights, particularly over the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which would codify the federal government’s use of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism in evaluating campus antisemitism cases, but has failed to pass in several congressional sessions.
“We learned a lot from the experience with the Antisemitism Awareness Act. Of course we still support the IHRA definition, but we made a collective communal decision that there’s a separate bill that covers the IHRA definition, and that we hope that will continue to move through the process, but this is a separate issue,” Fingerhut told JI.
The bill does not explicitly endorse the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, which has proven a hurdle to previous efforts to combat antisemitism, but it notes that the Trump administration in 2019 implemented an executive order enforcing the IHRA definition on college campuses.
“This is the security of the Jewish community, and it has to be something that can be embraced on a bipartisan basis across the aisle,” he continued.
Fingerhut said that Rosen and other advocates made specific efforts to ensure the bill would not contain elements that would “turn it into a partisan effort” or “alienate people who have strong feelings about some of the issues that were in the Antisemitism Awareness Act, and so we hope we’ve accomplished that.”
Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), who co-chairs the House antisemitism task force and also spoke at the press conference, said that he and his House co-chairs are moving toward introducing companion legislation.
“This was a labor of … unquestionabl[e] importance and it has taken us quite some time to come together in a bipartisan, bicameral way,” Goldman acknowledged. “We worked for several months to fine tune this bill, so that it can be a targeted, productive, and effective concrete step to fighting antisemitism and rooting it out on the ground. We have worked very hard in a bipartisan way because none of these bills matter unless they become law.”
Goldman highlighted the “dramatic escalation” in antisemitic incidents in New York City in recent weeks, and said that simple condemnation after -the -fact is “too little, too late.”
The bill has widespread support among Jewish community groups and across all major religious denominations, including from the American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Orthodox Union, JFNA, Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, Secure Community Network, The Rabbinical Assembly, Hadassah, Jewish Women International, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, the Blue Square Alliance Against Hate, JCC Association of North America, the Nexus Project, Union for Reform Judaism, the Central Conference of American Rabbis and Agudath Israel of America.
The Republican Jewish Coalition and Jewish Democratic Council of America are also both endorsing the bill, JI has learned.
The legislation follows a previous effort by Rosen and Lankford, and counterparts in the House, to introduce a comprehensive package of antisemitism legislation in the past Congress, the Countering Antisemitism Act, which faced opposition from senior lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and ultimately did not advance.
The new bill is somewhat more limited than that prior effort, and builds on or combines other efforts that lawmakers have advanced individually, though certain provisions could still face objections from various corners.
Mirroring efforts currently underway in the 2027 government funding process, the legislation would authorize $1 billion annually for the Nonprofit Security Grant Program — though that funding would still have to be approved annually through the appropriations process even if this bill passes.
It also includes various provisions aimed at reforming NSGP management, including requiring that the Federal Emergency Management Agency provide sufficient staffing to “streamline the application process and post-approval process for a grant,” provide additional technical assistance to grantees and quickly disburse funds under the program, within 90 days of when grantees submit reimbursement requests.
At the outset of the Trump administration, grant reimbursements were paused for a significant period as the administration reviewed all Department of Homeland Security grant programs.
It requires that applications for the program open no later than 90 days after Congress passes funding for the program, and that each state publicize a timeline to submit applications, both of which were issues during the 2025 grant cycle.
Addressing repeated congressional complaints during the second Trump term that lawmakers have not received adequate information about or communication from the administration about the grant program, the legislation would codify a requirement that FEMA provide Congress with a list of grant awards and amounts at least a week before such grants are publicized. It would also release to the public information about grant acceptances and rejections and the criteria for such decisions.
Responding to concerns about new conditions imposed on applicants relating to cooperation with immigration authorities and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programming, the bill bars any conditions or terms that would disadvantage applicants or grant recipients based on their “religious, political, or ideological affiliation.”
The bill would modify current grant rules to allow nonprofits to use NSGP funding to pay for contracted or in-house security personnel.
At the press conference, Rosen called the provisions “comprehensive and long overdue reforms to this program that will actually make sure that it works for our at-risk institutions.”
And it would require the intelligence community to produce annual assessments on domestic and transnational antisemitic violent extremism.
The legislation would additionally codify a version of a program established in the 2026 Department of Justice funding bill that would allow the DOJ to provide grants to state and local law enforcement for the purpose of protecting religious institutions and addressing religious-based hate crimes.
In the education space, the bill would establish an antisemitism coordinator within the Department of Education, whose responsibilities would include working to ensure that antisemitism complaints that have been pending with the department’s Office for Civil Rights for more than 180 days are resolved promptly.
It would also mandate that any schools receiving federal funding designate a coordinator for addressing discrimination complaints under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and establish a uniform grievance procedure and provide support mechanisms for such complaints. The effort mirrors policies currently in place for sex-based discrimination, under Title IX.
To improve visibility into the volume of antisemitic activity on college campuses, the legislation would change federal reporting procedures for hate crimes on college campuses, requiring that annual public campus crime reports disaggregate such offenses based on the bias category, such as antisemitism, that motivated them.
It also requires the Department of Education to offer trainings for schools on their Title VI responsibilities and to create an online database on Title VI best practices and recommendations. It requires schools to publicize educational materials about students’ Title VI rights both online and in person.
Rosen told JI that existing mechanisms have been “woefully inadequate to protect our students.”
Addressing antisemitism online, the bill requires platforms with more than 50 million unique monthly American users to submit to the Federal Trade Commission and to share publicly a transparency report on their “content moderation practices and efforts to detect, remove, limit the visibility of, and prevent the amplification of antisemitic content” on their platform, twice each year.
That report would include details on the specific review mechanisms and content moderation tools the platforms use; the total number of pieces of content on the platform that were determined to violate their policies on antisemitism and what action the platforms took; the amount of antisemitic content that reached more than 100 viewers or was promoted by the platform’s algorithms; the percentage of antisemitic content that violated the platforms’ policies but remained online; and details on accounts that were suspended or removed for sharing antisemitic content.
Platforms that do not comply with these reporting requirements would be subject to penalties by the FTC.
The administration would also be required to report to Congress on antisemitism online that has been linked to offline violence.
Goldman said that such transparency provisions would serve as a “tremendous deterrent.”
“If these social media companies need to disclose how much money they’re making off of antisemitic content, that’s going to be a deterrent. That is bad PR. And so it is critically important that we take this first step,” Goldman said. “It doesn’t violate the First Amendment, it doesn’t violate Section 230. It is purely bringing some transparency.”
Rosen emphasized that social media has been an “accelerant” and driver of antisemitism, making such content easier to access. She said the legislation would not compel speech or action by the platforms, but would provide transparency into how algorithms may be driving people toward hate and violence, and allow better analysis and understanding of the problem.
Fingerhut told JI that recent antisemitic attacks may also play a role in demonstrating to lawmakers the need for the legislation to address antisemitism and protect the Jewish community.
Several speakers also made note at the press conference of the attack on Monday at the Islamic Center in San Diego, highlighting the threats to religious communities broadly which can benefit from the NSGP funding.
Despite the three Republican defections, the measure still failed to pass
Kevin Carter/Getty Images
U.S. Capitol Building on January 18, 2025 in Washington, DC.
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.
The measure garnered 47 votes in the Senate, with GOP Sen. Susan Collins joining with Democrats for the first time
Kevin Carter/Getty Images
The U.S. Capitol Building is seen at sunset on May 31, 2025 in Washington, DC.
The Senate rejected for the sixth time an effort from Democrats to force the Trump administration to halt the war in Iran — with the vote once again falling largely along party lines.
The vote was the last before the conflict approaches the 60-day mark outlined in the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which requires the executive to seek congressional approval for continuing hostilities or draw down U.S. forces.
“After 60 days of war, it is long past time for Republicans to hold Donald Trump accountable,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said in a statement released prior to the vote. “Some of my colleagues have indicated that the War Powers Act’s 60-day mark is the moment they may join our efforts to bring this war to its conclusion. That time has come.”
The latest resolution, sponsored by Schiff and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), failed by a measure of 50-47. Sens. Jerry Moran (R-KS), Patty Murray (D-WA) and Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) did not vote.
Sens. John Fetterman (D-PA), Rand Paul (R-KY) and Susan Collins (R-ME) voted with the opposition party. This was the first time in which Collins sided with the Democrats on the war powers votes.
“As I have said since these hostilities with Iran began, the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief is not without limits,” Collins said in a statement following the vote. “Further military action against Iran must have a clear mission, achievable goals, and a defined strategy for bringing the conflict to a close. I voted to end the continuation of these military hostilities at this time until such a case is made.”
Collins added that the 60-day war powers deadline is “not a suggestion; it is a requirement.”
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) said he was not surprised by Collins, noting that “she has been saying the 60-day clock is significant for her.”
He added that for him: “We haven’t reached the 60 days. That’s why I voted the way I voted.” However, Hawley said that he wants “to see an end to the war.”
Senate Republicans have told Jewish Insider they expect the White House to abide by the law and provide notification of a 30-day extension to Congress, which is permitted to ensure a safe withdrawal. However, the administration has not yet indicated publicly whether it will seek that extension or continue offensive operations, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Thursday that the 60-day clock was “paused” during the ongoing ceasefire.
As the deadline approaches, a growing rift is emerging among Senate Republicans over whether to support an Authorization of Use of Military Force.
“I would hope it wouldn’t come to that,” Hawley said of the White House potentially extending the conflict past the 60-day mark. “I think the administration has tried to remain within the statute.” Hawley has said that should the conflict extend past the deadline with no further action from the White House that he would debate an AUMF, but said he would prefer not to support authorizing a war he wants to see “wind down.”
Hawley said he would “welcome further communication from the White House.”
Sen. Todd Young (R-IN) also said he expects that the White House will “communicate” and “make a very strong legal argument.” He also noted that he believes the administration has “followed the War Powers Act provision so far in a very careful way.”
Young said that should an AUMF be necessary, he could see himself voting for a “properly structured authorization.”
“That’s been my position throughout this exercise,” Young said, referring to the recent slate of war powers votes. “My hope would be that if we went down that road, we’d work with the administration to draft a properly scoped authorization for the use of military force.”
Meanwhile, Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) said he is “not ready to commit to anything.”
“I want to make sure that we continue to get classified information on a timely basis from the Pentagon,” Rounds said. “I think today we had a very good classified setting with a lot of good information being provided. I think they [the White House] did a good job of sharing their point of view on it. So we’re moving in a good direction.”
Asked whether he believes anything would change at the 60-day deadline, Rounds replied: “I have no reason to believe that’s the case right now.”
Rounds said he believes a path forward between the U.S. and Iran will be “extremely difficult without regime change.”
“But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t hope for an agreement with this particular regime under very strict observations by outside forces to make sure that they adhere to any agreements we make,” Rounds added.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) said that while he thinks the current war is “unwise” and “illegal,” he said that if Congress “were to pass an AUMF in both houses it would stop being illegal.”
“I would stop critiquing it as an illegal war if they [Congress] passed an AUMF,” Kaine said.
Kaine said he expects that another war powers vote “will come up right after [Congress adjourns for] recess.”
“I think the testimony this morning shows they [the White House] know they got a 60-day problem,” Kaine said, referring to Hegseth’s remarks at the hearing.
Rounds, who serves on the Senate Armed Services committee, said that he would need to “go back and do a good review of that particular” remark.
“We’re in the middle of it,” Rounds said. “Once I have a chance to actually go through it myself then I’ll have a comfort level. I’m not going to disagree with him [Hegseth] at this stage.”
Democratic leadership, who had backed the Maine governor in the primary, voiced tepid support for Platner moving forward
Robert F. Bukaty/AP/Graham Platner campaign
Gov. Janet Mills and Graham Platner
Maine Gov. Janet Mills said on Thursday that she was suspending her primary campaign to challenge Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), clearing the path for her Democratic primary rival, Graham Platner, to secure the party’s nomination.
“While I have the drive and passion, commitment and experience, and above all else — the fight — to continue on, I very simply do not have the one thing that political campaigns unfortunately require today: the financial resources,” she said in a statement.
Her sudden exit, with just over a month until the June primary, marks a stunning development in the closely watched race that Democratic leadership has regarded as one of its best pick-up opportunities this cycle as the party seeks to reclaim the majority in the upper chamber.
Mills, a moderate two-term governor who had been favored by the Democratic establishment, struggled to gain traction in the race against Platner, a far-left political newcomer who had continued to maintain a commanding polling and fundraising lead, even as he has faced ongoing scrutiny for his extensive record of incendiary statements and personal controversies.
Since he entered the primary last year, Platner, a 41-year-old oyster farmer and former Marine, has weathered criticism over a now-covered Nazi tattoo whose imagery he claims not to have recognized until recently as well as a series of past online comments in which he praised Hamas’ tactics during a violent raid into Israel in 2014, among other posts that have been surfaced amid his campaign.
He has otherwise drawn blowback for boosting extremists — telling a podcast host who has spread antisemitic conspiracy theories, for instance, that he was a “longtime fan” of his show.
In a statement, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chair, called Mills “a formidable governor who has broken barriers and never hesitates to stand up to bullies to fight for Maine,” adding that they “will work with the presumptive Democratic nominee Graham Platner to defeat” Collins, viewed as among the most vulnerable Senate Republicans up for reelection.
The statement, hardly a ringing endorsement of the now-presumptive nominee in a crucial battleground state, underscored the uncomfortable nature of their relationship with Platner, who has been a vocal critic of the Democratic establishment and its support for Israel.
Platner, casting himself as a populist, had won an early endorsement from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) that helped him rise to prominence at the beginning of his campaign, and has continued to claim backing from a handful of other national progressive leaders such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA).
Nirav Shah, a Democrat running for governor of Maine, also announced he was endorsing Platner on Thursday after Mills had bowed out of the primary.
Mills, whose comments did not mention Platner, has not indicated if she will back her now-former rival.
In a statement, Platner voiced gratitude for Mills’ “service to Maine” and said he looked “forward to working with her between now and November” to defeat Collins.
Republicans, for their part, have seemed particularly eager to go up against Platner, whose vulnerabilities the Senate GOP campaign arm had been aggressively highlighting even before Mills ended her campaign.
“Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats just coronated a phony who is too extreme for Maine,” Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), the National Republican Senatorial Committee chair, said in a statement on Thursday. “Susan Collins has always put in the work for her constituents and delivered. Washington Democrats always fall short in Maine and will again, because they just nominated a dishonest radical.”
Collins, in comments to a CNN reporter on Thursday, praised Mills but would not weigh in on Platner as she prepares for what is now expected to be a bitterly contested general election.
One X-factor keeping Republicans competitive is the Democratic Party’s lurch leftward in the last year, leading to the emergence of extreme, exotic and out-of-the-mainstream candidates in pivotal battleground races
Graham Platner campaign/Travellers & Tinkers/Wikimedia Commons/Kenneth C. Zirkel/Wikmedia Commons
Graham Platner/ Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan/Abdul El-Sayed
The combination of history and polling is pointing to the likelihood of a Democratic wave election in the 2026 midterms, which would give Democrats control of the House and a fighting chance to claw back a Senate majority.
Polls show Democrats holding a sizable edge on the generic ballot, their favored candidates are running competitively even in red states and congressional districts, all while President Donald Trump’s approval rating is sagging amid high gas prices, executive overreach and an uncertain outcome in the aftermath of the war in Iran.
But the one X-factor keeping Republicans competitive is the Democratic Party’s lurch leftward in the last year, leading to the emergence of extreme, exotic and out-of-the-mainstream candidates in pivotal battleground races.
Indeed, a new poll commissioned by The Argument magazine finds that the generic ballot shows Democrats have been stuck with a six-point lead for a while even as Trump’s job approval has declined precipitously in the last several months. They’re voting to put a check on the GOP’s dominance of Washington, without endorsing the direction of the Democratic party.
“Democrats still have tangible policy misalignments with many voters who dislike Trump,” The Argument concluded in its polling analysis.
All told, the question becomes: Will the anticipated Democratic wave closely resemble the Democrats’ version of the GOP Tea Party election of 2010? In that election, Republicans swept into power in the House but far-right and extreme Senate candidates in key races blew golden opportunities, costing Republicans the upper chamber.
That dynamic repeated itself in 2022, when many experts anticipated a Republican wave election, but the party’s nomination of hard-line MAGA candidates in battleground contests led to a marked underperformance.
The alternative outcome is that partisanship and tribalism now run so deeply that an individual candidate’s flaws — even seemingly disqualifying ones — don’t mean what they used to. Right now, Democratic primary voters look like they’re ignoring personal baggage in favor of candidates that are the most ideologically progressive, personally authentic and who are burning hot with rage against Trump and the leadership class.
On the Senate side, Maine Democrat Graham Platner fits that profile to a tee, and is all but locking down a primary victory against longtime Gov. Janet Mills, the favorite of the party establishment. If he’s the nominee, he’d then face Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who has a record of winning tough races even in dismal environments for her party.
In Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed holds both a radical record and support from a dedicated progressive base of young voters and Arab Americans. That has put him in contention for the Democratic nomination, but many Democrats fear he’d lose the seat to former Rep. Mike Rogers, the expected Republican nominee.
And in Minnesota, Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan holds lots of left-wing baggage but that’s not hurting her insurgent primary campaign against Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN), a more traditional and moderate Democratic contender. Former sportscaster Michele Tafoya is the GOP favorite in this race.
There are even more House races where problematic candidates are in contention in swing districts — like Ammar Campa-Najjar in the race of retiring Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Colorado state Rep. Manny Rutinel, running to unseat Rep. Gabe Evans (R-CO).
If 2010 offered any lessons, it’s that ideologically extreme, problematic candidates typically underperform expectations. That often makes the difference in a battleground state or district, where the margin of victory is typically close. It’s easy to get nostalgic for a time when a candidate like Christine O’Donnell (who notoriously proclaimed she was not a witch!) was as exotic as it got in politics. Now one of the Democrats’ leading Senate candidates is known for proclaiming he’s “not a secret Nazi.”
But given the tribalism of the current environment and the intense anti-Trump sentiment among Democrats and independents, do voters care about candidate quality anymore? Last November, Virginia voters elected an attorney general who survived revelations that he wished violence on a political opponent, only mildly underperforming the rest of the Democratic ticket.
This year’s midterm elections will put that proposition to the test. With strong battle-tested moderate recruits — like former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper and former Alaska Rep. Mary Peltola — in purple and red states, Democrats are expanding the Senate map and giving themselves a fighting chance for a clean sweep.
But they risk jeopardizing those gains with some (potentially) not-ready-for-primetime players in the biggest battlegrounds of all: Maine and Michigan.
Plus, our sit-down with Josh Shapiro in Pittsburgh
Jim Watson - Pool/Getty Images
U.S. Vice President JD Vance gives remarks following a roundtable discussion with local leaders and community members amid a surge of federal immigration authorities in the area, at Royalston Square on January 22, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Good Thursday morning.
In today’s Daily Kickoff, we interview Gov. Josh Shapiro about recent Senate moves attempting to block U.S. military aid to Israel, and talk to Sen. Richard Blumenthal — one of seven Senate Democrats to vote last week against the weapons bans — about his efforts to restore bipartisan support for the Jewish state. We talk to Jewish leaders from communities targeted by antisemitic violence about their efforts to lobby Congress on legislation to protect religious institutions, and report on New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s decision not to adopt any definition of antisemitism after scrapping City Hall’s previous adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism days into his tenure. Also in today’s Daily Kickoff: Chaim Galbut, Patrick Drahi and Hilary Krieger.
Today’s Daily Kickoff was curated by JI Executive Editor Melissa Weiss and Israel Editor Tamara Zieve, with assists from Danielle Cohen-Kanik and Marc Rod. Have a tip? Email us here.
What We’re Watching
- Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter and Simon Karam, Lebanon’s former top envoy to Washington, are set to convene today for a second State Department-brokered meeting in as many weeks between officials from the countries. U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee returned to Washington earlier this week and is expected to participate in the talks.
- The talks will take place days before the expiration of a 10-day ceasefire between Jerusalem and Beirut, and a day after a Lebanese journalist for the pro-Hezbollah daily Al-Akhbar was killed in an Israeli strike on Hezbollah targets in southern Lebanon. Read more here.
- Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison is hosting a dinner this evening at the U.S. Institute of Peace honoring President Donald Trump and CBS News’ White House correspondents amid a flurry of events around the White House Correspondents Dinner on Saturday night.
- The Jewish Democratic Council of America is hosting a candidate forum with NY-17 Democratic candidates Cait Conley and Beth Davidson. Read our interviews with Conley, a former senior counterterrorism official, and Davidson, a Rockland County legislator.
- Former Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell and Walter Russell Mead are among those slated to speak today at the Hudson Institute‘s daylong New India Conference in Washington.
- Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe, a Republican, will sign into law legislation adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism.
What You Should Know
A QUICK WORD WITH JI’S mATTHEW KASSEL
As Vice President JD Vance has recently found himself navigating tenuous negotiations between the United States and Iran, his central role in the talks to end the war is highlighting his own vulnerabilities on the domestic front — where he is facing pushback from the isolationist right that is seen as part of his coalition.
In many ways, Vance’s political troubles recall his predecessor, former Vice President Kamala Harris, who in her 2024 presidential campaign drew fierce protests from far-left activists who objected to former President Joe Biden’s support for Israel amid the war in Gaza.
Harris, who has grown more openly critical of Israel since losing the race and leaving office, strained both to articulate a consistent message on Gaza that would satisfy the far and center left and to distance her campaign from an aging, unpopular president whose approach to Israel, according to her recent memoir, was not fully aligned with her own.
Anti-Israel activists continue to insist, even years after the election, that Harris’ association with Biden while he supported Israel’s war against Hamas cost her votes that contributed to her defeat, while pro-Israel Democrats claim she failed to draw red lines around growing extremism within the party that alienated moderates, and is now inflecting the midterm elections. More recently, the former vice president faced anti-Israel hecklers during a book tour last year.
In recent weeks, Vance, who is widely seen as a top 2028 presidential prospect, has likewise struggled to appease a restive coalition of anti-war critics on the populist right who feel his alignment with President Donald Trump’s robust foreign policy agenda represents not only a betrayal of their values but also the noninterventionist views he himself had long espoused.
Last week, in a disruption reminiscent of Harris’ campaign experience, Vance was notably heckled during a speaking appearance at a Turning Point USA event held at the University of Georgia, where an attendee interrupted his comments to accuse the Trump administration of supporting “genocide” in Gaza and “killing children.”
SHAPIRO SPOTLIGHT
Josh Shapiro supports U.S. aid to Israel, but calls to use it as leverage

On the eve of the NFL draft on Wednesday, Pittsburgh, the host city, was in full spectacle mode. Israel, 6,000 miles away, was abuzz for a very different reason: the country was celebrating Yom HaAtzmaut, marking 78 years of independence. As he jumped between draft events, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro shared his thoughts with Jewish Insider’s Gabby Deutch about both.
On Israel and the Iron Dome: “In the case of Israel, you have a country that is constantly being attacked with missiles and other weapons that put civilians at risk, and America is invested in providing assistance like Iron Dome to protect innocent civilians from those terrorist attacks,” said Shapiro. “I think that is in America’s national security interest.” But the swing-state governor, who appears to be mulling a presidential run in 2028, did argue that the U.S. should use its position as a major financial backer of Israel to exert leverage over the country’s use of American-made weapons. Shapiro said Washington has not done a good enough job of that.
Bonus: Last night, Shapiro co-hosted a Unity Dinner for Jewish and Black college students, part of an effort by the United Negro College Fund, Hillel International and Robert Kraft’s Blue Square Alliance Against Hate to bridge divides between the communities.



























































































