A day after Republican senators blocked a vote to end the U.S.-Israeli operations in Iran, the House voted 219-212 to defeat a similar war powers resolution, with four Democrats breaking with their party to oppose an immediate end to the war, and two Republicans voting with other Democrats to oppose military action.

Reps. Greg Landsman (D-OH), Jared Golden (D-ME), Henry Cuellar (D-TX) and Juan Vargas (D-CA) were ultimately the only Democrats to vote against the resolution, which was led by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY). Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), who said they would oppose the resolution before the war began, ultimately voted in favor.

On the Republican side, Massie and Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH), both of whom have isolationist leanings, were the only members of the GOP to support the resolution.

Moskowitz had argued before the war that voting preemptively on the resolution would remove U.S. leverage in negotiations, but argued that the situation has since changed and that the U.S. is now in a full-scale war.

“I didn’t flip at all,” Moskowitz told Jewish Insider. “Circumstances have changed since my first statement two weeks ago.”

In a statement, he condemned Iran and its regime, saying he is “happy that [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] is no longer able to reign terror on his country,” but added, “Regardless of how one feels about this war, or this President, Congress’s constitutional role in any declaration of war is a completely separate issue,” expressing concern at the erosion of congressional war powers over the past year. 

“We must reestablish our Article I authority which grants Congress all legislative powers,” Moskowitz said, adding that he did not believe the resolution would prevent continued efforts to protect U.S. bases and personnel nor intelligence sharing with allies.

Gottheimer emphasized in a statement that the U.S. “simply can’t afford to get this wrong — we must win and crush” the Iranian regime’s military capabilities, emphasizing that he is not, in principle, opposed to military action against Iran and that the regime “deserves the punishment they’re receiving.

“With the defeat of the War Powers Resolution in the Senate, the vote in the House today shifted from an unacceptable call that could put our troops in harm’s way to a clear call for this Administration to articulate the goals for the mission, the end game, and their plan to avoid a protracted conflict,” Gottheimer continued — suggesting that he voted for the resolution because it was, in essence, symbolic given that it did not pass the Senate.

“Unlike some of my colleagues who are opposed to combatting the Iranian regime, the world’s leading state sponsor of terror, I’m supporting this resolution to send a clear message to the Administration: the American people deserve a coherent explanation of what precipitated this war, what success looks like, and how we will know when the mission has been achieved,” he continued, criticizing “shifting justifications and objectives” from the administration. “I’m not opposed to taking action against Iran. I believe that steps to address the persistent threats are merited and necessary to protect our broader national security interests.”

He pledged to make sure the military has sufficient resources, signaling that he may support supplemental funding for the mission if and when requested.

The beginning of combat operations, the loss of some American soldiers and the administration’s inconsistent messaging and strategy — as well as an aggressive push from Democratic leadership — likely helped Democrats close ranks on the war powers resolution.

After the vote, Rep. Greg Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said that he would call up another war powers resolution 60 days from the start of the war, the limit under which an administration can conduct military operations without congressional authorization under the War Powers Act.

“Members who voted against today’s WPR on the assumption that Trump’s war will be swift or limited will not have that excuse once we’ve entered the third month of open-ended hostilities,” Meeks said.

Like Moskowitz and Gottheimer, a handful of other Democrats who have offered a degree of support for the U.S. operations in Iran ultimately voted for the resolution. Some have pointed to concerns about constitutional process and the administration’s failure to seek congressional approval for the war, rather than opposition to the war in general.

“I will vote for the war powers resolution because I cannot support unchecked authority for the administration to engage, indefinitely, in an already deadly war with unknown size and scope, especially considering Secretary [of Defense Pete] Hegseth’s suggestion that he is willing to” use ground troops in the operation, Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY), a moderate House Democrat, said.

At the same time, Suozzi said that “Iran is weaker and the regime’s leadership has been decimated — those are good things. If these operations make the region more secure and America safer, those would also be good things.” He added that the war powers resolution would not prevent Congress from authorizing the use of force in Iran “if necessary and properly presented to Congress.”

Davidson, one of the two Republicans who voted for the resolution. said on the House floor on Wednesday that operations against Iran were just, and potentially necessary, but unconstitutional.

“For some this debate will be about whether we should even be fighting in Iran. For me, the debate is more fundamental: is the president of the United States, regardless of the person holding the office, empowered to do whatever he wants?” Davidson said. “That’s not what our Constitution says. … I rise in support of this war powers resolution today because the moral hazard posed by a government no longer constrained by our Constitution is a grave threat.”

Davidson argued that his Republican colleagues were ignoring the clear definition of what constitutes a war, and repudiating Trump’s campaign promises.

The House resolution, unlike the Senate version, included no specific protections to allow for continued U.S. intelligence sharing with Israel and other allies, and defensive operations to protect allies like Israel and U.S. forces.

Earlier this week, Gottheimer, Landsman, Suozzi, Cuellar, Golden and Reps. Jimmy Panetta (D-CA), Jim Costa (D-CA), Vicente Gonzalez (D-TX) and Adam Gray (D-CA) had introduced an alternative resolution that would give the administration 30 days from the start of the war to wind down operations in Iran, rather than demanding an immediate halt, while banning any ground operations.

Gottheimer said in his statement he plans to call up his resolution during the week of March 23, but he hopes that, “Between now and then, I hope either the conflict has reached its objectives or the Administration has made a strong case to Congress and the American people for why this mission must continue.”

But most ultimately voted for the Massie-Khanna resolution.

Suozzi said that the Gottheimer resolution “would prevent a reckless and potentially unsafe removal of our forces and allow us to continue to protect American troops and our allies in the region during this perilous time,” a seeming indictment of the war powers resolution he nevertheless supported.

Top lawmakers supporting the war powers resolution have largely failed to articulate what the implications of immediately ending operations would be, with some claiming, in spite of the resolution’s language, that U.S. forces would be allowed to finish their mission and wind down.

Some former Democratic officials argued that Gottheimer’s alternative effort would be a more prudent path, with U.S. forces and embassies under fire from Iran, and that any realistic and safe withdrawal would take time. One also argued that the resolution, if brought to a vote, might pick up enough Republican support to pass.

Daniel Silverberg, a former advisor to Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), emphasized that a similar effort to cut off the U.S.’ Libya operations led by “one of the most ardent anti-war activists in the House,” then-Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), included a 15-day wind-down provision.

“The Massie-Khanna resolution lacks it. The notion that Democrats would not, at a minimum, support that amendment to allow for a responsible withdrawal of forces is problematic from a national security perspective and from a messaging perspective,” Silverberg said.

Jeremy Bash, a former chief of staff at the Department of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency under the Obama administration, told JI that the Khanna-Massie resolution “requires [a] very strange outcome” that would be “dangerous for our troops” and that it was not “credible” because it lacked any buffer period.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A pair of senators and a House lawmaker will introduce bipartisan, bicameral legislation on Thursday aimed at boosting U.S.-Israeli cooperation on bilateral defense programs.

The United States-Israel Framework for Upgraded Technologies, Unified Research, and Enhanced Security Act of 2026, abbreviated to the United States-Israel FUTURES Act, will be introduced in the Senate by Sens. Ted Budd (R-NC) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and in the House by Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX). The bill establishes a cooperative initiative focused on accelerating and expanding bilateral defense technology research, development, testing and evaluation projects, as well as supporting industrial cooperation. 

The U.S. and Israel have worked together for years on bilateral defense and technology programs, most notably U.S.-Israel cooperative missile-defense programs — including Iron Dome, which offers protection against drones and short-range surface-to-surface rockets; David’s Sling, which can intercept short-to-medium- and medium-to-long-range surface-to-surface missiles fired from 62 to 124 miles away; and the Arrow-2 and Arrow-3 systems, which can intercept longer-range ballistic missiles. Another is the anti-tunneling and counter-unmanned aerial systems programs.

“The U.S. has a long history of working with our ally Israel on defense programs to counter unmanned aerial systems from our adversaries, strengthen missile defense, and detect and neutralize underground tunnels threatening the security of our two respective countries,” Budd told Jewish Insider in a statement on the bill. 

“The U.S.-Israel FUTURES Act offers an opportunity to strengthen existing bilateral programs by advancing joint investments such as emerging technologies, defense industrial base cooperation, artificial intelligence, and biotechnology initiatives,” his statement continued. “I am proud to be working with Sen. Gillibrand to advance regional security in the Middle East and strengthen U.S. and Israeli defense.”

Gillibrand told JI, “This bipartisan initiative will enable long-term collaboration on shared security goals between the United States and our vital democratic ally Israel. We must strengthen our military and technological capabilities to counter continued and future threats in the region.”

Jackson told JI that the bill “secures America’s competitive edge in defense technology and reinforces our alliance with Israel, our greatest partner in the Middle East, to deter evolving global threats.” 

“Under President Trump’s leadership, we are ensuring the technological supremacy of our military and delivering the unmatched capabilities our warfighters need to dominate the battlefield and protect the American people,” Jackson said. 

Republican and Democratic senators urged senior UBS executives in a hearing on Tuesday to reconsider the Swiss banking giant’s continued refusal to hand over more than 150 documents to an investigator probing Credit Suisse’s support for Nazi Germany during and after World War II.

At the heart of the dispute is UBS’s decision to withhold key documents from the investigation into Credit Suisse’s wartime actions, citing potential legal risks stemming from a 1998 settlement. Lawmakers are pressing the bank to release the files, arguing that withholding them is an attempt to avoid accountability for its historical role in aiding Nazi operations. The documents in question are believed to contain critical information that could further illuminate Credit Suisse’s involvement with Nazi officials, and senators are pushing UBS to cooperate fully in order to ensure transparency and justice for Holocaust survivors and their families.

Senators pressed Robert Karofsky, president of UBS Americas, and Barbara Levi, UBS Group’s general counsel, to reverse course on the bank’s opposition to sharing with attorney Neil Barofsky and Congress the remaining files on the yearslong investigation into the ways that Credit Suisse, which UBS acquired in 2023, aided Adolf Hitler’s war efforts. 

Karofsky and Levi testified at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that UBS could not provide the documents until the New York judge that approved a $1.25 billion settlement in 1998 between multiple Swiss banks, including Credit Suisse, and Holocaust survivors issued an order affirming that the deal would cover any future claims. 

Among those testifying was Rabbi Abraham Cooper, the director of global social action at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, who accused UBS of “actively blocking important aspects of Mr. Barofsky’s work” and alleged that the bank was seeking to silence the Jewish organization.

In his opening statement, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the committee’s chairman, accused UBS of taking “legal action against a Jewish human rights organization” to “block” the Simon Wiesenthal Center “from fully speaking on all Holocaust issues,” after SWC accused Credit Suisse in 2020 of not fully disclosing its Nazi ties. Grassley also said the bank has been attempting “to limit” the ability of Neil Barofsky, the independent ombudsman the bank hired to oversee the probe, to testify before the committee.

“These efforts, if successful, would have frustrated this committee’s public hearing. UBS’ conduct is absurd and a historic shame that’ll outlive today’s hearing. Before UBS’ recent obstructive efforts, the investigation yielded new information,” Grassley said. 

The UBS executives told the committee that threats of litigation from SWC and other Jewish organizations for additional compensation beyond the $1.25 billion settlement had prompted them to request an updated order from the judge, which senators rejected as an attempt to skirt accountability. 

“That’s what this is all about, you don’t want to pay any more money,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) told Karofsky.

“Yes,” Karofsky replied.

“If you owe more money, then by God, pay it,” the Louisiana senator said in response. 

The bank’s request that the judge bar SWC and other Jewish groups from commenting publicly on any new revelations from the 150 documents or the bank’s financial obligations was also poorly received by senators.

“UBS, the successor to Credit Suisse, has gone to court not to disclose what was concealed, but to seek an order that would silence discussion of these crimes by Jewish organizations demanding accountability,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said. “That is not closure. It is the continuation of the wrongdoing this time through the courts.”

After Levi told Cruz that UBS has “no intention to sue” SWC, the Texas senator responded, “Yet as you sit here today, UBS has a motion pending before a federal court in New York seeking to enjoin the Simon Wiesenthal Center and over a dozen other Jewish organizations in America from ever researching, speaking or publishing any content related to ‘The Holocaust, World War II and its prelude and aftermath, victims or targets of Nazi persecution and transactions with or actions of the Nazi regime.’”

Cruz then mused that it was “bizarre that UBS has expressed its commitment to pursuing the truth but is actively seeking court orders to silence it.”

“Jewish families sought refuge in Swiss banks, believing in the promise of neutrality. That refuge proved illusory. That promise proved hollow. Accounts vanished, records dissolved. Then came the cattle cars bound for camps with no return. Economic annihilation was the prerequisite. Mass extermination was the goal,” Cruz continued.

Levi repeatedly defended the request UBS had made to the judge in New York, asking senators in response to a question from Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA): “Where is the incentive for financial institutions to investigate or cooperate when they’re certain to face litigation and possible legal liability?”

Levi said that should the judge issue the requested order, the bank would hand over the final files to Barofsky. UBS fired Barofsky in 2022 but rehired him to continue his work in 2023 after Grassley, who was then the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who chaired the Budget Committee during that time, launched an investigation into his dismissal. 

Barofsky, who also appeared before the committee on Tuesday, testified that UBS had been cooperative with his investigation from the time of his rehiring until November of last year, as both sides reached a stalemate on the 150 documents. The files, Barofsky said, appear to go to “the heart of our investigation,” which has seen UBS turn over more than 16 million documents. 

Several revelations were made during the hearing, a pronouncement from Grassley that his probe had uncovered 890 previously undisclosed Credit Suisse accounts with potential Nazi links and that Argentine President Javier Milei had provided investigators with archival records of the “ratlines” used by prominent Nazis who escaped justice by fleeing to Argentina. Barofsky shared as part of a 73-page update on his investigation that Credit Suisse helped to finance the “ratlines” and was a landlord for an office in Bern, Germany, that oversaw the process by which Nazi officials bribed their way onto flights out of the country. 

“A lengthy saga it has been, but it is also a saga that has demonstrated what good bipartisan congressional oversight can achieve,” Whitehouse said in his opening statement. “Chairman Grassley has long been a dogged champion of congressional oversight, and for that, I admire him. That is one of the reasons we partnered on this investigation. Elected officials working across the aisle to expose wrongdoing, malfeasance and misconduct is essential to advancing transparency, promoting accountability, guaranteeing public trust in private institutions, and I would add in public institutions as well, and pursuing justice.”

In a statement following the hearing, SWC CEO Jim Berk said, “Transparency is not about rewriting history; it is about completing it. We are proud of our role in initiating this independent investigative process with our own initial findings and then zealously pursuing complete accountability. Ensuring access to the full historical record is a core part of the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s mission and essential for survivors and their families, for public trust, and for preserving the integrity of Holocaust memory.”

The organization said that it “applauds” the committee “for its continued oversight and commitment to ensuring that the historical record of the Holocaust and its aftermath are examined thoroughly and responsibly, including by demanding answers from those who would prefer the truth to remain hidden.”

“Today’s hearing is an important moment in ensuring that remaining questions about Holocaust-era assets continue to be examined, and that the investigation into Credit Suisse initiated by the Simon Wiesenthal Center is allowed to proceed without interference.”

A bipartisan group of senators wrote to Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Wednesday urging him to “surge resources to quickly enable critical internet freedom support” to protesters in Iran, pointing to funding cuts that have stretched resources for such programs.

“Today, many of the NGOs and technology providers that maintain these tools are facing closure due to funding cuts and more importantly, fewer Iranian citizens can share their videos and messages with the world and each other,” the letter warns. “Without the continuous operation of internet freedom programming carried out by the State Department and Open Technology Fund, millions of Iranians will lose their last secure window and voice to the outside world.”

The lawmakers, Sens. James Lankford (R-OK), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Cory Booker (D-NJ), warned that if U.S. programs fully lapse, regime-controlled programs and state media will step into the gap, “giving the regime near-total control over the digital space and putting users at far greater risk.”

“As we watch brave Iranians take to the streets, it is clear that supporting the Iranian people’s access to information is not a partisan issue but a matter of national security, as well as meeting legislative requirements for a strategy for promoting internet freedom in Iran,” the lawmakers said, pointing to existing legislation mandating the State Department to expand internet access in Iran. “The United States must pair its maximum pressure on the regime with maximum support for the Iranian people.”

The letter comes at a time when Congress has offered few of its own strategies to respond to the wave of protests around Iran — which, according to Rubio, have now largely been put down by the regime.

Such efforts to promote free internet access to the Iranian people, amid efforts by the regime to impose an internet blackout, have emerged as a key area of bipartisan agreement.

Much of the U.S.’ global communications programming, including funding for promoting internet access, was slashed last year amid cutbacks to various foreign aid programs. Some prominent Republicans have criticized the administration, saying that government-sponsored news programming and communications assistance have failed to meet the moment in Iran.

The letter emphasizes the “long-standing and bipartisan commitment” to supporting internet freedom programs, which are “more important than ever as the people of Iran protest against the regime in record numbers.” The legislators noted that prior administrations have, for two decades, supported various anti-censorship and internet freedom tools in Iran, and that Congress passed legislation in 2024 supporting such programs.

“Without U.S. leadership, an entire generation of Iranians would have remained in the dark — and the most powerful source of pressure against the Islamic Republic, the Iranian people themselves, would have been neutralized,” the letter reads.

It notes that the existing U.S. programs allowing a small number of Iranians to remain online had “proved decisive” during the Israel-Iran war last summer to demonstrate the division between the Iranian people and the regime, and said that expanded internet access now “would put a spotlight on the increasingly securitized atmosphere that is cracking down on dissent.”

Senators offered a positive readout from a dinner meeting with Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa on Sunday evening prior to al-Sharaa’s Monday summit at the White House with President Donald Trump.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) told Jewish Insider that al-Sharaa was “very charismatic” and “had a very open conversation” about his “checkered past” with senators. “I found it to be straightforward. I thought his answers were what we needed to hear, but I think he honestly believed it too,” Mullin said of the dinner. 

“I was with him in Damascus in August. I led the first delegation there with [Rep.] Jason Smith (R-MO), [Rep.] Jimmy Panetta (D-CA) and [Sen.] Joni Ernst (R-IA). This was kind of more of the same, just building on that,” Mullin told JI. “When we talked in August, there were some issues that he brought up with sanctions towards the Assad regime that we need to work on. I’ve already been working on that, so we wanted to give him an update on it.”

The Oklahoma Republican said progress was being made on lifting the sanctions, something he attributed to the fact that the U.S. wants the al-Sharaa regime to “be successful.”

“He may not fit the mold of what you’d want as a leader in Syria. Actually, if you look at it, he’s probably what needs to be in Syria right now, because they’ve been at war for so long,” Mullin said. “As I told him, it’s trust — but verify. And so far, he’s making all the right moves. He’s trying to actually formalize relationships with Israel, that’s huge for that region. So, as he continues to move down this path, we want to continue to help him be successful.”

Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) told JI that, as a longtime Middle East and counterterrorism official, “it was quite a change to be sitting across the table from someone a decade ago I may have looked at in a very different light. But he was very impressive.”

She said that Michigan has a large Syrian-American community that supports efforts to lift sanctions and reopen Syria to the world, “so it was actually in some parts, even quite moving.” Slotkin said she also supports lifting sanctions to “do what I can to give them a shot,” and added that she wants to visit Syria.

“There were a number of people at the dinner, Democrats and Republicans, who have former service in the global war on terror,” Slotkin continued. “There was something really almost emotional about sitting across the table from someone who years ago would have been an adversary who now seems like he’s trying to really make Syria work. It was quite moving.”

Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) echoed his colleagues’ comments about wanting to see al-Sharaa be successful in ushering Syria into a peaceful era.

“We need Syria to succeed. We want Syria to succeed. Peace between Syria and Israel is absolutely essential. Respect and support for the Syrian Democratic Forces is essential,” Coons told JI, referring to the Kurdish-led group that has been a key U.S. ally inside Syria.

The Delaware senator said that the Sunday evening discussion “was broadly a constructive conversation. For some of the members who were present, it was their first time meeting him. For most of us, it was our second or third conversation with him.”

“Having a pathway towards repealing the state sponsor of terrorism designation and repealing or downgrading the Caesar sanctions were key asks of his, and I believe the NDAA has a Risch-Shaheen provision that repeals the Caesar sanctions,” Coons added. 

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) called the meeting “encouraging and positive.”

“I think that the relationship with Israel is still challenging,” Blumenthal told JI. “I asked him very specifically about it, but on the whole, I think it’s a new chapter for the region that could be extremely promising.”

Ernst, who also attended the dinner, described it in a statement as “frank and constructive,” praising Trump for engaging with al-Sharaa.

“Today’s visit is an important step toward building trust, fostering dialogue, and uniting Syria’s diverse ethnic and religious communities,” Ernst said. “Under President Trump’s leadership, there is a real opportunity to advance peace in the Middle East and make the vision of a more stable and prosperous world a reality.”

Other lawmakers who attended the dinner were Reps. Brian Mast (R-FL), Marlin Stutzman (R-TN), Joe Wilson (R-SC) and Abe Hamadeh (R-AZ). Mast, according to Politico, was not planning to attend the meeting but happened to be at the same hotel where the meeting was occurring and was asked to join.

He offered a more tepid readout than many of the other attendees.

Amer Ghalib, the mayor of Hamtramck, Mich., and President Donald Trump’s embattled nominee to be U.S. ambassador to Kuwait, struggled to win over skeptical senators of both parties during his confirmation hearing on Thursday as he faced a grilling over his long record of promoting antisemitic ideas and embracing anti-Israel positions as an elected official. 

Ghalib was grilled by Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which began when the committee’s ranking Democrat, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), called out his litany of antisemitic comments and denial of sexual violence during Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack. 

It culminated with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), after questioning Ghalib about his past opposition to the Abraham Accords and support of boycotts against Israel, announcing at the end of the hearing that he would not be able to support his nomination. 

Senators on both sides of the aisle pressed Ghalib over a litany of extremist views and statements he’s made in recent years. In addition to his denial of the scope of the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks, senators also pointed to past comments he made suggesting that the terrorism itself was justified. They also questioned him over his consistent unwillingness to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist, and even when pressed at the hearing, resisted recognizing Israel’s place as the Jewish homeland. 

He also faced bipartisan scrutiny over his recent characterization of Saddam Hussein, the former Iraqi dictator who invaded Kuwait, as a “martyr” — a social media post senators found stunning given that he’s being tapped as ambassador to the country Hussein invaded.

His record of antisemitic commentary was also probed, with senators asking about his liking a comment on Facebook referring to all Jews as “monkeys” and the record of one of his political appointees in Hamtramck who said the Holocaust was “God’s advanced punishment of the chosen people” over Israel’s war in Gaza.

Ghalib also tried to evade responsibility for Hamtramck becoming the first city in the nation to adopt a Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions policy against Israel. He claimed he played no formal role in that designation.

Throughout the hearing, Ghalib declined to walk back his comments, repeatedly arguing that what he believes in his “personal capacity” should be distinguished from how he planned to act in his “official capacity” as a U.S. ambassador. “I’m a Semite. The Arabs are Semites. Do we read history? How can we be antisemites? And I think, like I said, judge my actions and not my intentions,” Ghalib said.

Cruz, in the hearing, became the first Republican senator to say he can’t support Ghalib’s nomination. Several other GOP senators on the committee are considering coming out against Ghalib, according to sources familiar with lawmakers’ thinking.

“I believe your beliefs are sincere. I believe that when you became the mayor of the first city in America to pass a BDS resolution, it’s because you believe in BDS,” Cruz said. “What I do not understand is how you could possibly serve as United States ambassador for President Trump in the Middle East when you have passionate views, including having been a vocal opponent of the Abraham Accords, the singular and most consequential accomplishment President Trump has negotiated.”

“Your long-standing views are directly contrary to the views and positions of President Trump and to the position of the United States. I, for one, am not going to be able to support your confirmation,” he continued.

Sen. John Curtis (R-UT) who serves on the committee but was not in attendance at the hearing, released a statement after Ghalib’s testimony saying that the Utah senator is “deeply concerned about Mr. Ghalib’s nomination.”

“It is crucial that we expand peace in the Middle East and that begins with the acceptance of Israel’s right to exist. Ghalib has demonstrated he is sympathetic to beliefs that run completely contrary to that goal,” the statement read. 

“I think that you have dug your hole deeper today,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) told Ghalib. “It doesn’t matter to me whether you support the president’s [Middle East peace] plan. Again, this idea that your personal views don’t matter is ridiculous.”

Senators told Ghalib that he was welcome to hold incendiary points of view or embrace those with such beliefs, but that would likely disqualify him for a role representing the United States as ambassador. 

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV), a co-chair of the Senate Bipartisan Task Force for Combating Antisemitism, excoriated Ghalib during her opening statement, describing his conduct as unacceptable for a public figure. “As an elected official, you had a responsibility to work with your constituents to eliminate hatred from communities, all hatred from communities, but instead, you chose to inflame divisions and traffic in antisemitism,” Rosen said.

“You liked a Facebook comment comparing Jews to monkeys. You characterize leaders you don’t like as ‘becoming Jewish.’ As mayor, you failed to comment after one of your political appointees suggested the Holocaust was ‘advance punishment’ for the war in Gaza, and you denied the Hamas used sexual violence as a weapon of war on Oct. 7,” she continued. “You can disagree with the Israeli government, but peddling antisemitism in such a public manner, as an elected official, as a community leader, is beyond the pale.”

Ghalib was asked four times — three by Sen. Dave McCormick (R-PA) and once by Murphy — if he would say that he supports Israel’s right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people. “I think everybody, we can coexist in the region, and everybody has the right to exist now,” Ghalib told McCormick after the Pennsylvania senator’s third time asking the question.

Only after Murphy criticized his refusal to answer McCormick’s question did Ghalib respond directly.

“I believe it can be a home for the Jewish and the Arabs and the Muslims and the Christians as well. And that’s why it’s a diverse land for the three major religions,” Ghalib told Murphy, without mentioning Israel by name. “I think they can coexist, all the nations in the Middle East, based on the peace plan of President Trump that I support strongly.”

Murphy pressed Ghalib on his claims that he had condemned the October 2023 comments by Nasr Hussain, a political appointee of his on the Hamtramck Plan Commission, about the Holocaust being “God’s advanced punishment,” noting that Ghalib had not responded to requests from senators for proof that he had distanced himself from Hussain. 

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) also pointed out that Ghalib had expressed support for the Houthis’ November 2023 hijacking of the British-owned Galaxy Leader cargo ship in the Red Sea, prompting Ghalib to deny he had ever made such a statement. 

Kaine then asked if he was denying that he had authored the social media post with the statement. Ghalib responded by suggesting that he now opposes the attack, and then appeared to accuse the Virginia senator of making “assumptions” and taking his words “out of context.”

“I don’t think it’s a celebration. This is an assumption that [you’re] making. I disagree with attacking the ships and disrupting,” Ghalib said. “I think there was a post, but it seems like it’s taken out of context. Maybe I commented, I don’t know.”

Later on, Cruz grilled Ghalib about a social media post he wrote in 2020 praising the Muslim Brotherhood as “an inspiration” and asked whether his stated support for the group would be a conflict if the Trump administration were to designate the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. Ghalib said he would implement the president’s policies, though only after downplaying the group’s extremism.

“I believe that it’s an ideology. It’s not just a group of people. I disagree with a lot of things that they do. Some of them are extremists. Some of them are part of some governments in the Middle East,” Ghalib said of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Shaheen, the top Democrat on the committee, called Ghalib’s expressed beliefs “abhorrent” and said she was “very concerned about some of the statements that you have made, and frankly, what appear to be antisemitic views.” The New Hampshire senator said she took grave offense to Ghalib’s comments claiming that reports of sexual violence by Hamas on Oct. 7 were “lies and deception” and expected him to offer “an unequivocal condemnation of the horrific crimes committed on Oct. 7.”

Ghalib said he had “totally condemned what happened on Oct. 7” after learning of the atrocities, and claimed that he “was not aware” of what “kinds of abuses” Hamas had orchestrated when he made those comments. He also alleged that local media had misrepresented his past social media posts and public comments to make it look like he was antisemitic or supportive of terrorists and dictators. 

“I’m in politics. I understand the press doesn’t always accurately represent what we say,” Shaheen replied. “That doesn’t explain the comments you made to my staff, nor the direct quotes from your hometown news outlet about sexual violence on Oct. 7. The fact that you represented to my staff that there was no documented evidence of that just shows to me a lack of recognition of what was going on.”

The only apology Ghalib offered regarding his past remarks related to his comments about Saddam Hussein, telling senators that he was sorry if his description of the late dictator had caused offense, especially with “those who suffered from Saddam or lost loved ones.” He explained that he was complimenting Hussein for “keeping the Iranian regime in check” after McCormick noted that he served in the 82nd Airborne Division that helped liberate Kuwait from Hussein’s forces.

The White House did not respond to Jewish Insider’s request for comment on the status of Ghalib’s nomination. 

Several senators said on Friday that the administration’s unilateral offer of defense guarantees to Qatar — similar to those the U.S. has made to protect its NATO allies — deserves scrutiny from Congress.

The administration on Monday quietly issued an executive order stating that the U.S. would offer defensive guarantees to Qatar, “shall regard any armed attack on the territory, sovereignty, or critical infrastructure of the State of Qatar as a threat to the peace and security of the United States” and “shall take all lawful and appropriate measures — including diplomatic, economic, and, if necessary, military — to defend the interests of the United States and of the State of Qatar and to restore peace and stability.”

Sen. Todd Young (R-IN), a top Republican voice in favor of reclaiming congressional war powers, said that the deal “certainly strikes me as unconventional and the sort of thing that the Foreign Relations Committee might want to hold a hearing on.”

“In the end, it’s the chairman’s prerogative, but it does strike me as worthy of attention and explication in a public setting,” Young said.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), another leading advocate on war powers issues and in opposition to the administration’s acceptance of a Qatari luxury jet for use as Air Force One, said that the move will carry the perception of corruption.

“I’m very troubled by it,” Kaine said. “It just looks like it was a trade for the jet. Maybe it’s not that, but that’s the way it looks. And why would you pollute something that maybe has a good rationale — but now it’s polluted with the way everybody looks at it.”

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), a leading Republican critic of U.S. support for Qatar, said that he planned to speak to the president about the order. “I haven’t talked to him [the president] about it. I don’t understand why. He hasn’t explained it to me, but I’ll ask him about it,” Scott told Jewish Insider.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said that the deal “will have to be reviewed carefully, depending on whether it serves our security interests and Israel’s.”

Multiple Republican senators emphasized that the deal does not carry the force of congressional ratification as a treaty.

“I don’t think you can do that by executive order,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said.

Asked about Congress granting Qatar those protections, Graham replied: “I don’t like its chances [of getting through Congress]. I appreciate trying to stand up for Qatar because they’re helpful, but they also have another side of the story. You can’t confer Article 5 protections by executive order, and I don’t think there’d be any appetite at all to do that through a treaty.”

Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) framed the deal as part of Trump’s pressure campaign on Hamas to agree to his framework for peace in Gaza.

“The president is always thinking about negotiations, and certainly the president can have his policy,” Ricketts said. “However, it is not something that is a treaty, so it’s really, I think, meant as a negotiating thing to help get Qatar to get Hamas to surrender.”

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) said he hadn’t reviewed the details of the agreement yet, but noted that any long-term foreign agreement would require congressional ratification to remain in effect.

“If we’re going to a national security agreement long term, that’s going to be lasting,” Congress should be consulted, Lankford said. “Things only last if they have the imprimatur of Congress actually put on it — whether it’s a trade agreement or a defense agreement. It’s got to be statute.”

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) told JI he had “not heard anything about” the deal before noting, “It’s always up to the president to decide what he would like to suggest that he would like to do. Article 5 is part of a treaty right now, and if it is a treaty-type of an agreement, it would have to come before the Senate.”

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) defended the president’s support for Qatar, telling JI, “Qatar is an important piece of the pie, a piece of the puzzle in the Middle East. We have to recognize that. We don’t always agree with everything they do, but we don’t agree with everything Israel does and we don’t agree with everything Jordan does, but they’re still close friends of ours. We know they want to be close to us and we want to, we can still use them as a strategic ally.”

Senators reacted with cautious optimism — and a degree of skepticism — to President Donald Trump’s announcement on Monday of a sweeping deal that would end the war in Gaza, see the release of the remaining hostages and facilitate reconstruction of the Gaza Strip.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) warned that the execution of the deal would require close monitoring of Hamas’ compliance and that long-term peace in the region will likely require eliminating Iran’s other proxies, in addition to Hamas.

“I hope Hamas agrees — we’ll get the hostages home. Distrust and verify with these guys,” Graham said. “A lot of loopholes if you don’t watch it, but I hope we can land this deal.”

“When you talk about normalizing the Mideast, I’m all for that. But after Oct. 7, we have to learn one thing: As long as radical Islamic terrorist groups exist, you can’t have a normal Mideast,” Graham continued. “I hope we can land this deal and bring the hostages home and start a new chapter in Gaza and the West Bank, but I will never support normalization until Hezbollah is dealt with. You cannot say the Mideast is a normal place as long as Hezbollah is a threat the way it is today.”

He said that he’s concerned that Hezbollah would replicate Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack if Israel and Saudi Arabia again begin to move toward normalization again before the Lebanese terror group is eliminated.

“If we do the Hamas deal, we should insist that the region deal with Hezbollah and take them both down, then eventually the Houthis,” he continued. “My takeaway of Oct. 7 is if you don’t have these radical groups in a box, you can never really achieve peace.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said that there are “some details to be filled in, but I think by and large this seems like a very encouraging development.”

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) was hesitant to offer an assessment of the deal before Hamas had agreed to the terms.

“It’s the deal that hasn’t happened yet. It’d be nice. I mean, I guess it would be great if we get the hostages back and we get a ceasefire and we get to rebuild Gaza. That all sounds really good. I’m glad that Trump cares about this. It seems optimistic,” he told JI. 

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) expressed some hesitation about engaging with the Qataris and taking a deal, but suggested Trump was ready to bring the conflict to a close. 

“It’s bold. It’s gutsy on the president’s part. I just will believe it when I see it. I’m just so skeptical of one side in this, getting Qatar in there and involved,” Cramer told JI. “Clearly we’re playing along a little. I don’t know. I just don’t know. I think the timing for Trump is sort of like, ‘Okay, now’s the time [for a ceasefire]. We’ve done the dance long enough.’”

Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC) said he’s reviewing the plan, adding that the elimination of Hamas is a necessity.

“You can’t have Hamas promising the destruction of Israel,” he continued. “As long as there’s no threat, I see an opportunity here, but you can’t make a deal with somebody that wants to exterminate you.”

Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Jim Risch (R-ID) praised the plan on X. “President Trump again shows his commitment to peace with his plan to bring all the hostages home, end the war in Gaza and transition to a future that allows the Palestinian people to prosper without Hamas’ terror schemes,” Risch said. “Anyone who wants a better future for the Palestinian people should join this pursuit of peace.”

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) told Jewish Insider he’s “glad they look like they’re moving toward peace.”

“I don’t think Israel is worried any longer about being popular. I think Israel was worried about its survival, and I respect that. And they’re going to do whatever it takes,” Kennedy continued. “Now, will Hamas accept it? I don’t know. I really don’t know. I hope they do. But if they don’t, I think Israel needs to continue to do what it’s been doing and wipe Hamas off the face of the earth.”

Democrats expressed hope that the deal would bring the war to a close.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) told JI, “I’m encouraged the president’s engaging directly and saying this war must end. Humanitarian relief needs to go in, hostages need to come out, there needs to be a plan going forward for Gaza,” but said he hadn’t seen the details of Trump’s announcement.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said that he was not familiar with the specifics of the plan. “If there’s a ceasefire and return of the hostages and humanitarian relief, bravo,” Blumenthal said.

Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT), one of the most vocal critics of Israel’s Gaza operations in the Senate, told JI he hadn’t reviewed the plan but “my main concern [is to] start getting food and medicine in. That has to happen immediately.”

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement. “I call on Hamas to accept, and Israel to faithfully implement, the proposal laid out by the United States.”

Prior to the meeting, leading Senate Democrats had urged Trump to press Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to accept a hostage deal that ends the war, as well as to pressure Netanyahu to rule out annexation of the West Bank.

With the 2025-26 school year kicking off, Sens. Dave McCormick (R-PA) and John Fetterman (D-PA) wrote to the presidents of five Pennsylvania universities urging them to work with their Jewish communities to ensure Jewish students’ safety and ability to participate in campus life.

McCormick and Fetterman wrote the letters to the presidents of Lehigh University, Pennsylvania State University, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Pittsburgh and Temple University, and suggested in part that the schools should cover additional security expenses incurred by campus Jewish organizations.

“We write to you to urge you, as a leader of a Pennsylvania university with a large Jewish student population, to commit to ensuring Jewish institutions on your campus are equipped to protect the students they serve, including by allocating the resources to do so,” the lawmakers wrote. “It is incumbent on all of us — especially our nation’s universities — to ensure vibrant Jewish life is not compromised or driven into the shadows.”

They urged the college presidents to “work with your campus’s Jewish institutions and ensure all students, regardless of their race, ethnicity, or shared ancestry, are safe and able to fully participate in campus life.”

The senators noted that antisemitic harassment and violence has plagued Jewish communities and institutions on campuses in the state, that “many Jewish institutions have been forced to cover the costs of additional security” and that students have been forced to hide their Judaism.

McCormick and Fetterman told the schools that “no students should feel like they must risk their safety” to practice their religion and that institutions such as Hillel and Chabad should not be forced to divert funding from programs toward security expenses.

They praised some Pennsylvania schools for taking steps to enforce their campus policies, break up encampments and suspend student groups involved in antisemitic activity.

Senators remained divided about the success of the American military strikes on Iran’s nuclear program following a classified briefing on the subject from Cabinet officials on Thursday. Several Republicans hailed the strike as a success, while some Democrats said it had barely set Iran’s nuclear program back and many others on both sides said that it’s too soon to accurately judge the attack’s success. 

The briefing led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and CIA Director John Ratcliffe also does not appear to have dissuaded Democrats from pursuing plans to call up a war powers resolution to block further military action against Iran. 

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told reporters that “we’ve caused catastrophic damage to Iran’s nuclear program.” He said Iran might try to rebuild the program at some point, but that the U.S. and Israel had struck critical targets in all parts of the nuclear weapons manufacturing process.

“You have seen several experts in the last couple of days, who I think it’s fair to say are not Donald Trump partisans, use words like ‘effectively destroyed,’ ‘catastrophic damage,’ ‘set back for years,’” Cotton said. “I think it’s safe to say that we have struck a major blow, alongside our friends in Israel, against Iran’s nuclear program that is going to … protect the world from the risk of an Iranian nuclear program for years.”

Cotton declined to comment on whether Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium was destroyed or had been relocated, adding “it was not part of the mission to destroy all their enriched uranium, or seize it, or anything else.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that the program had been set back “years, not months,” adding, “I think it’s absurd that any member of the Senate would say … that this wasn’t necessary.”

“Nobody is going to work in these three sites any time soon. They’re not going to get into them any time soon. Their operational capability was obliterated,” Graham said. He also said he doesn’t know where Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium is, but likewise argued that it was “not part of the target set.”

The South Carolina senator additionally said, “I don’t want people to think that the problem is over, because it’s not. They’re going to keep trying this until they change their stated goal” of eliminating Israel.

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) said he was “very confident it’s been set way back, a year at the minimum.”

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) said that the strikes had “accomplished the purpose of destroying the nuclear ambitions,” adding that assessments would be ongoing “but [are] very positive.”

Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) declined to say whether he was confident that Iran’s nuclear program had been destroyed or disabled, but told Jewish Insider that the briefing had “set the record straight” from a leaked low-confidence Defense Intelligence Agency report indicating the strikes had limited effect and only set Iran’s nuclear program back by a few months. He said that report was not accurate based on the information he received.

Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) told JI the briefing had “affirmed” his support for the strikes.

“You can’t possibly know with certainty” if the program was destroyed, Fetterman said. “We have to get beyond the partisanship. … We will know more and more as there’s more time. But at this point, it was the right thing. … What’s out so far confirms that significant damage was done.”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) said he did not learn anything new in the briefing that would impact his support for Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. 

“I didn’t hear anything in there that I haven’t read in the press. I think the operation was obviously a great success, and the president’s achievement in getting a ceasefire in place, I think, is really significant. And now it’s a question of making that stick and pursuing our objectives going forward,” Hawley told JI while leaving the briefing.

Others were more pessimistic about the strike.

“Right now, it seems to me that leaked DIA report is right, that we only set this program back a handful of months, and that is not obliteration,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), one of the most vocal critics of the strike, said.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), reading off of a card of prewritten, typed remarks, said that he “did not receive an adequate answer” to the question of whether Iran’s nuclear stockpile had been destroyed.

“What was clear is that there was no coherent strategy, no end game, no plan, no specific, no detailed plan on how Iran does not attain a nuclear weapon,” Schumer said. “Anyone in that meeting, anyone — if they’re being honest with themselves, their constituents, their colleagues — would know that we need to enforce the War Powers Act and force them to articulate an answer to some specific questions and a coherent strategy.”

Many senators said that the full impact of the strikes will take longer to understand, as more intelligence is gathered.

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) said that the briefing confirmed that the mission had gone off as administration officials had planned: “The guys hit the targets as planned. The munitions worked exactly as planned, and the results were as expected.”

Rounds added that it is impossible to say exactly how long the nuclear program was delayed “until we actually get the real analysis of proof of what happened.”

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that “the reporting will continue to come out around” whether the program was set back by months or years, but added, “as Gen. [Dan] Caine and [former national security official] Brett McGurk, if you heard his analysis, followed up and confirmed that the first two phases of the operation seemed very successful.”

Asked if Trump had been honest in describing the program as eliminated, Shaheen said, “you’d have to ask the president.”

Shaheen said that the briefing was a “good follow-up” to a news conference by Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, earlier in the day, where Caine discussed the strike on Fordow and the bunker busting bomb used.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the vice chair of the Intelligence Committee, said it’s “going to take some time to get a final assessment of how much damage [was done],” adding that he’s concerned that President Donald Trump “jump[ed] to a conclusion too early” that the program was “obliterated.”

“I hope that is the final assessment. But if not, does that end up providing a false sense of comfort to the American people?” Warner said. He added that some of Iran’s enriched uranium “was never going to be taken out by a bunker-buster bomb, so some of that obviously remains in Iran.”

Warner said there are still questions about how quickly Iran could rush to a nuclear device using the material it still retains, particularly if it did not plan to mount the bomb on a missile.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) also said that the briefers had told the senators it was “too early to know” whether the program was destroyed.

Asked by JI if he learned anything during the briefing that changed his assessment of Trump’s strike being the wrong decision, Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) replied: “I came away feeling like I learned some valuable information, yes.”

“The whole time I’ve been a senator, I’ve been gravely concerned about Iran’s nuclear enrichment program and the threat it poses to Israel, Tehran, to the region. Your question is: do I feel safer [after the briefing]? We do not have a complete assessment yet of the impact of the strikes of last week, and when we do, I think that’ll answer a lot of currently unanswered questions,” Coons told reporters.

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) said that “the situation is evolving and what we know about it — the nature of the thing is what we’ll know about it is evolving,” adding that he plans to vote for the war powers resolution.

Multiple senators said that the administration appears to be focused on resuming diplomacy as its next step.

“The administration’s trying [to] engage, on a diplomatic level, and that would be the next step, is trying to have some kind of discussion with the Iranians about giving up their ability to enrich uranium,” Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) said.

Graham expressed deep skepticism about the possibility of negotiations with Iran, though he said that now is probably the most ripe time for negotiations given Iran’s weakness.

“I talked to Rubio, I talked to the administration,” Graham said. “Try diplomacy, but if you don’t get a commitment up front that Iran, from this day forward, abandons its stated desire to wipe out Israel, if they’re not willing to recognize the Jewish state, you’re wasting your time.”

Warner, on the other hand, argued that diplomacy is the only path to ensure Iran cannot enrich uranium for military purposes, as inspectors will need to be sent into the country to verify that.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) said that “there’s a lot to [discuss]” about the war powers resolution and the potential timing for a vote on it — originally expected Thursday or Friday. “There’s just a lot to think about in that, and I’d have to hear from our colleagues about why, or when, to call that [up].”

Senators largely described the briefing as cordial and said the briefers had answered the questions posed to them.

Asked whether he was concerned that Hegseth and Rubio had provided political talking points or failed to address the substance of the issue, Kelly said that the two “did a good job. They answered our questions.”

But Murphy said he was “deeply worried about the politicization of intelligence.”

A bipartisan group of 33 senators — mostly Democrats — sent a letter last week urging Senate Appropriations Committee leaders to provide $500 million for the Nonprofit Security Grant Program in 2026, matching the record-high request from a group of House members earlier this month.

The letter was sent the day following the murder of two Israeli Embassy employees outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, an attack that led a coalition of Jewish groups to call for increasing funding for the program, which provides synagogues and nonprofits with grants to improve their security, to $1 billion. The funding request in the Senate letter likely would have been finalized prior to the attack.

It’s not clear, at this point, whether lawmakers might seek to revise their requests to come closer to the $1 billion level, or how feasible either request level might be. The Trump administration had proposed cuts to non-emergency grant programs at the Federal Emergency Management Agency and has not yet offered a specific proposal for the NSGP. The $500 million request is nearly double the NSGP’s current funding level of $274.5 million.

“The threat of violence is unfortunately increasing at places of worship across our country at alarming rates,” the Senate letter reads. “There has been an increase in hoax bomb and active shooter threats against houses of worship to interrupt services and intimidate the worshipers. There has also been an increase in antisemitic and anti-Muslim incidents across the country following the October 7 attack in Israel.”

The letter outlines a series of attacks on houses of worship across the country, including synagogues, which the signatories said “highlight the ever-increasing need for the NSGP.”

The letter also notes the significant shortfall in funding for the program last year, with just 43% of grant applications being approved, even with additional funding available through the national security supplemental bill. Applicants requested a total of nearly $1 billion in funding.

“Unfortunately, it is easy to see that the need for the NSGP is quickly outpacing the funding,” the letter reads, noting that the deficit “left most of the applicants without the funding they needed to provide security to their at-risk institution.”

“Today’s threat environment provides a compelling public interest in preventing attacks that would disrupt the vital health, human, social, cultural, religious, and other humanitarian services provided by at-risk faith-based and nonprofit institutions,” the letter continues. “Such threats terrorize the lives and well-being of millions of Americans who operate, utilize, live, and work in their communities.”

The letter was led by Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), James Lankford (R-OK), Gary Peters (D-MI) and Jacky Rosen (D-NV), joined by Sens. Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Mark Warner (D-VA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Adam Schiff (D-CA), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Angus King (I-ME), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Jack Reed (D-RI), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Tina Smith (D-MN), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Jon Ossoff (D-GA), Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM), Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Ed Markey (D-MA).

Though Lankford and Cramer are the only two Republicans who signed the letter, the bipartisan request marks a change in Senate advocacy on this issue — in the past, bipartisan Senate groups have not specified amounts in their lobbying for the program. Senate Democrats last year called for $400 million for the program.