A Senate war powers resolution aiming to block further U.S. military action against Iran appears to be building and solidifying support among Democrats ahead of an anticipated vote later this week.

Sens. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Andy Kim (D-NJ) and Tim Kaine (D-VA) announced on Tuesday they planned to introduce an amendment to Kaine’s resolution to specifically ensure that the U.S. can continue to share intelligence with Israel and to assist Israel’s defense and provide it with defensive equipment to counter attacks by Iran and its proxies.

A House resolution on the issue had prompted private divisions among Democrats earlier this week over a similar issue, with many lawmakers concerned that the resolution would prevent the U.S. from continuing to support Israeli missile defense, a Democratic staffer not authorized to speak publicly told JI.

The senators said in a statement they expect the full Senate will vote on the amendment prior to a final vote on Kaine’s resolution. They argued that the amendment makes clear to Iran that the U.S. will continue to defend Israel.

Kaine said that the ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran announced Monday night doesn’t change the necessity of the vote, and “actually gives you the space to actually have a decision about, prospectively, should we be at war with Iran without a vote of Congress.”

Asked by Jewish Insider whether he still anticipates that most or all other Democrats will still support the resolution, Kaine said, “They believe we should not be at war without a vote of Congress. They may have different points where a war would be the right thing to do, but that should not happen without a vote of Congress.”

He said he still expects to have multiple Republicans supporting the resolution, but the number is unknown. Only Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has publicly voiced support.

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), asked about the resolution, said that there was not a “clear and imminent threat to the United States, to our citizens” and the administration “should have come to us and talked about this,” as it did prior to Operation Desert Storm, in which he served.

“You’ve got a goal, you talk to Congress about it. You get the force ready to do this. You talk to the adversary and you say, ‘Here are our options: Get out of Kuwait or we’re going to kick you out,’” Kelly said. “That occurred with a full, transparent discussion with the United States Congress, per the Constitution.”

Kelly reviewed a classified Defense Intelligence Agency assessment indicating the U.S. strikes had a limited effect on Iran’s nuclear program, and said that the situation shows the “recklessness of just rushing forward when you don’t have the follow-on plan, and you don’t really consider the consequence.”

He said the strikes were risky because Iran may now take its program completely covert and race to a nuclear weapon. “This has been my concern since the second this happened. Does this push them forward?” Kelly said.

Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO) said he hadn’t looked at the resolution but said “it seems like we had lots of time to be consulted.” 

Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) said she’s still examining the resolution but emphasized that she led legislation in 2020 to block military action against Iran following the killing of Quds Force head Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Tuesday proposed another amendment to Kaine’s resolution, commending President Donald Trump for a “successful mission” in damaging the regime’s nuclear program. 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Tuesday proposed an amendment to Sen. Tim Kaine’s (D-VA) war powers resolution, which would block the U.S. from taking further military action against Iran, commending President Donald Trump for a “successful mission” in damaging the regime’s nuclear program. 

Cruz introduced the amendment in anticipation of a vote later this week on the resolution, which would curtail the president’s ability to take any additional action targeting Iran without congressional approval. The amendment, if adopted, would attach language to the resolution celebrating the very actions it seeks to block.

“Members of the United States Armed Forces and intelligence community, and all those involved in the planning and successful execution of Operation Midnight Hammer on June 21, 2025, including President Donald J. Trump, should be commended for their efforts in a successful mission,” the amendment reads.

The Texas senator offered an identical amendment praising the president’s actions when Kaine introduced a war powers act in 2020 in response to Trump’s decision to assassinate Quds Force head Gen. Qassem Soleimani. That amendment, which said that those involved in the operation “should be commended for their efforts in a successful mission,” passed 64-34. 

“The Senate routinely passes this language to applaud presidents for operations like these, which make all Americans immeasurably safer. We came together to congratulate President Obama for liquidating Osama bin Laden, and the Senate voted to applaud President Trump for doing the same to Soleimani. I intend to ensure we do the same for this weekend’s crucial operation, which eliminated the existential threat to America of a nuclear-armed Iran,” Cruz told Jewish Insider in a statement. 

Kaine told reporters on Monday that his resolution was likely to come up for a vote on Thursday or Friday.

Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) interview on Tucker Carlson’s podcast published on Wednesday devolved into a shouting match at times between the two GOP heavyweights, with insults and charges of ignorance and antisemitism dominating the two-hour conversation between one of the Republican Party’s biggest pro-Israel champions and one of the most vocal critics of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

The interview was relatively civil for the first hour, but began to devolve when Carlson and Cruz started debating the benefits of the U.S. relationship with Israel and the merits of Israel and the United States allegedly spying on one another. 

Carlson pressed Cruz to say that allies spying on one another was wrong, which Cruz responded to by asking why Carlson and others had an “obsession with Israel” while ignoring similar behavior from other allies. Carlson rejected that he was “obsessed with Israel” before noting that he has never taken money from AIPAC, which he referred to as “the Israel lobby.” 

The conversation started to become more animated as the two could not find common ground on the role and purpose of AIPAC, with Carlson insisting that the organization, which is made up of U.S. citizens advocating for the U.S.-Israel relationship, needed to be registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act — an argument sometimes used as an antisemitic dog whistle accusing Jewish supporters of Israel of dual loyalty — and Cruz vehemently disagreeing. 

The interview grew more tense after Cruz accused Carlson of having an “obsession with Israel” and asked why he was so focused on asking, “What about the Jews? What about the Jews?” without being critical of other foreign governments.

“Oh, I’m an antisemite now?” Carlson replied wryly. 

“You’re asking, ‘Why are the Jews controlling our foreign policy?” Cruz told Carlson after the latter said he had accused him of antisemitism in a “sleazy feline way.”

Cruz told Carlson to give him “another reason why the obsession is Israel,” to which Carlson responded: “I am in no sense obsessed with Israel. We are on the brink of war with Iran, and so these are valid questions.”

“You asked me why I’m obsessed with Israel three minutes after telling me that when you first ran for Congress, you elucidated one of your main goals, which is to defend Israel. I’m the one who’s obsessed with Israel,” Carlson said, adding, “Shame on you for conflating” Jews and Israel.

“Israel and Jews have nothing to do with each other?” Cruz asked after Carlson claimed there was not a correlation.

Carlson said he was “totally opposed” to Iran’s desire to kill all Jews and Americans, which Cruz replied to by saying: “Except you don’t want to do anything about it.” 

The two then sparred over Carlson’s focus on Israel’s influence on U.S. foreign policy, with Cruz claiming Carlson was placing too much emphasis on the Jewish state while ignoring the malign influence of other governments. 

“I don’t even like talking about Israel. I never do because it’s not worth being called antisemites from AIPAC recipients,” Carlson said. “But now we are on the verge of joining a war and I just want to be clear about why we’re doing this.”

Carlson stated that anyone who criticized Israel’s actions were “instantly called an antisemite for asking questions” and said Israel was “the only government that no one will ever criticize.” Cruz said he rejected that assertion, pointing to statements from Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), a progressive House lawmaker and frequent critic of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Carlson scoffed at Cruz’s Tlaib reference, explaining that he was referring to the consequences for “Republicans that I would vote for, including you.” 

Regarding Iran, the two sparred over the regime’s apparent efforts to assassinate Trump, which Carlson denied had occurred.

“I voted for Donald Trump. I campaigned for Donald Trump. He’s our president, and we’re on the cusp of a war. So if there’s evidence that Iran paid a hitman to kill Donald Trump and is currently doing that, where is that? What are you even talking about? I’ve never heard that before. Where’s the evidence? Who are these people? Why haven’t they been arrested? Why are we not at war with Iran?” Carlson asked.

The Justice Department, in November 2024, did, in fact, indict multiple individuals in connection to the assassination plot, arresting two individuals involved in the scheme in the United States and issuing a warrant for a third, described as an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps asset.

The plot had been extensively reported upon, both at the time and in the months since. Cruz criticized Carlson for his suspicions about the plot.

The former Fox host asked Cruz shortly after to explain why he’d be proud to say that he came to Washington with the goal of being the most pro-Israel member of Congress, to which Cruz responded by citing his Christian faith, after which the two sparred about Christian scripture. 

The senator subsequently argued that he does not solely cite his faith as his reason for supporting Israel in his professional capacity, telling Carlson that he had championed the Jewish state because of his belief that Israel is our best ally in the Middle East. 

“I think the most acute national security threat facing America right now is the threat of a nuclear Iran. I think China is the biggest long-term threat, but acute in the near term is a nuclear Iran. And I think Israel is doing a massive favor to America right now by trying to take out Iran’s nuclear capacity,” he continued, later adding, “You want to ask: how does supporting Israel benefit us? Right now, this tiny little country the size of the state of New Jersey is fighting our enemies for us and taking out their top military leadership and trying to take out their nuclear capacity. That makes America much safer.”

Returning to the subject of Cruz’s faith, the Texas senator said that his support for Israel was also rooted in his Christian faith, citing the biblical phrase: “Those who bless Israel will be blessed and those who curse Israel will be cursed.”

Carlson mocked the fact that Cruz’s faith informed his pro-Israel views, and asked specifically the biblical citation. After Cruz acknowledged he didn’t know the exact verse, the podcast host then incorrectly answered his own question, mistakenly saying it was in Genesis.  (The verse is from Numbers 24:9.)

The interview again devolved into chaos after Cruz acknowledged that upon sharp questioning that he did not know the exact population size of Iran, prompting both men to question what the other knew, if anything, about the country. Carlson accused Cruz of being dismissive of the consequences of the military actions he was calling for, while Cruz accused Carlson of adopting the foreign policy platform of progressive Democrats. 

The first 60 minutes of the interview, which was released on Wednesday, was largely civil with Carlson asking Cruz to explain his support for Israel’s operation to destroy Iran’s nuclear program and regime change in Tehran.

The Texas senator argued that his recent comments in favor of toppling Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, were not an endorsement of a U.S. military invasion of Iran but rather of the idea of a democratic Iran. 

The two initially agreed that it would be better for the U.S. without an Iranian regime that aspires to destroy Western civilization and that they were frustrated by the interventionist versus isolationist binary that has increasingly characterized Republican foreign policy.

“For a long time, people have perceived two different poles of Republican foreign policy. There have been interventionists, and those have been people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham George W. Bush, and there have been isolationists, and the most prominent of those have been Ron Paul and Rand Paul and there are others. People perceive those are the two choices, you’ve got to be one of the other. I’ve always thought both were wrong. I don’t agree with either one,” Cruz said.

“For whatever it’s worth, I agree with you. I don’t know who set up that binary, but there are lots of choices, actually,” Carlson responded. Carlson is seen by many, however, as one of the leading figures of the isolationist wing.

The two men described themselves as non-interventionist hawks, with each saying they believed in the principle that the “central touchpoint for U.S. foreign policy and for any question of military intervention should be the vital national security interests of the United States” before disagreeing on whether the situation in Middle East qualified as such. 

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

For decades, Jewish and pro-Israel groups invested significant resources in building bipartisan relationships with key members of Congress to steer legislation, while helping secure foreign aid and blocking unfavorable initiatives concerning the Middle East.

But that long-standing playbook has appeared less effective and relevant in recent years as Congress has increasingly ceded its authority on foreign policy to the executive branch, a trend that has accelerated with President Donald Trump’s return to office. The dynamic is frustrating pro-Israel advocates who had long prioritized Congress as a vehicle of influence, prompting many to reassess the most effective ways to advocate for preferred policies.

That Congress had no formal role in Trump’s recent decisions to unilaterally reach a ceasefire with the Houthis in Yemen and to lift sanctions on Syria, for example, has stoked speculation that legislators could also be sidelined from ratifying a potential nuclear deal with Iran.

There are any number of reasons why Congress has taken a back seat in shaping foreign affairs, experts say, including Trump’s efforts to consolidate power in the executive branch, most recently by gutting the National Security Council. And Trump’s own power in reshaping the ideological direction of his party, preferring diplomacy over military engagement, has made more-hawkish voices within the party more reluctant to speak out against administration policy.

“Congress is increasingly irrelevant except on nominations and taxes,” Elliott Abrams, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who served as a special envoy for Iran in the first Trump administration, told Jewish Insider. “It has abandoned its once-central role on tariffs, and plays little role in other foreign affairs issues. That’s a long-term trend and we saw it in previous administrations, but it is worsened by the deadlocks on Capitol Hill, the need to get 60 votes to do almost anything, and by Trump’s centralization of power in the White House.”

Previously, “when there was real power in the departments, congressional oversight meant a lot more,” Abrams added. “If you’re a foreign ambassador in Washington, there’s no one to talk to at the NSC, lots of vacancies at State, and while there are plenty of people to meet with on the Hill, what are they going to do for you? You need to see Trump” Abrams said, or Steve Witkoff, the special envoy to the Middle East leading the negotiations with Iran.

The executive branch, to be sure, has long held significant control over foreign policy but it has expanded considerably in the decades following the 9/11 attacks. Since then, a law passed by Congress to authorize the invasion in Iraq in 2003 has been used — and, critics allege, abused — by successive administrations to initiate military action abroad without first seeking approval from lawmakers who are constitutionally empowered to decide when the country goes to war and oversee defense spending.

Still, Congress has also long shown “disinterest” in exercising its power over foreign policy, said Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute. “This was a preexisting condition,” he explained to JI. “By and large, Congress abdicated its oversight role before Trump even came to office,” especially as national security matters have been overshadowed by competing domestic issues such as inflation and immigration, which “resonate more saliently” with voters.

“Trump’s dominance over the Republican Party accounts for much of the acquiescence on the part of his Congress,” observed Stephen Schlesinger, a historian who specializes in international affairs. “But let us not forget that recent Democratic presidents have practically had a free hand, too, in pursuing their own global policies — with little reaction or opposition from their party members.”

Among other examples, Schlesinger cited former President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran — brokered without consent from Congress — as well as former President Joe Biden’s “total support” for Ukraine in its war against Russia.

Republican deference to Trump, however, has set a new standard for such acquiescence, Schlesinger argued, particularly on talks with Iran. “Given the past obsessive Republican fury against a deal with Iran during Democratic administrations, still none in Trump’s party have objected to a nuclear deal with Tehran under Trump, or, for that matter, his solo decision to lift sanctions on Syria, a country led by a former radical Islamic leader,” Schlesinger noted.

“Certainly the reality of governance in Washington today is that Congress may not be totally irrelevant, but they’re an appendage to the whims and desires of the Trump presidency,” said Norman Ornstein, a senior scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “There is little if any pushback or oversight of what Trump” and his advisors “involved in foreign policy and diplomacy are doing — and that’s a change.”

The new dynamic has forced pro-Israel groups to adapt to a new political landscape in which their traditional advocacy has been weakened by Congress’ diminished clout and lack of interest in asserting meaningful supervision over Trump’s recent Middle East policy decisions.

“There are very few remedies for this kind of a standoff where the executive branch has arrogated to itself so much power that Congress is essentially marginalized,” said Danielle Pletka, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who previously worked on the Hill. “When you look at the question of Israel, you have to see it in the context of much broader trends.”

Marshall Wittmann, a spokesperson for AIPAC, argued that both “the administration and Congress play a critical role in strengthening and expanding the U.S.-Israel relationship, and AIPAC works with key leaders in power, on both sides of the aisle and both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue, to build support for the mutually beneficial alliance between America and Israel.” 

The absence of congressional influence has come as disagreements have emerged between the Trump administration and the Netanyahu government over ending the war in Gaza and nuclear diplomacy with Iran. Trump’s recent trip to the Middle East — where he met with a range of Arab leaders but did not stop in Israel — was one of the latest indications of deprioritization of America’s closest ally in the region.

Tensions have also surfaced amid ongoing negotiations with Iran. Pro-Israel advocates have voiced concerns that Trump’s negotiating team is nearing an agreement that could simply reinstate the deal brokered by the Obama administration a decade ago — which detractors had criticized as a pathway to a nuclear weapon since it allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium.

The Trump administration has indicated it will not permit Iran to retain domestic nuclear enrichment — even as some officials have sent mixed signals on the matter, contributing to a sense of confusion over the ultimate terms of an agreement. Trump pulled out of the original deal — which was widely opposed by Republicans — during his first administration.

For pro-Israel groups, the risks of clashing with Trump on key issues likely outweigh the benefits, observers contend. “Any organization has to very carefully weigh its equities before publicly taking on the administration,” Daniel Silverberg, a former top foreign policy advisor to Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), told JI.

The pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC has recognized that it is now operating in a unique landscape, according to Manny Houle, a Democratic pro-Israel strategist who previously served as the group’s progressive outreach director in the Midwest. Before Trump was elected, Howard Kohr, AIPAC’s former president, frequently said the group “was all about Congress,” Houle recalled in a recent interview with JI. “Then, Trump was in office and he said we’re going to be dealing with the White House.”

Marshall Wittmann, a spokesperson for AIPAC, argued that both “the administration and Congress play a critical role in strengthening and expanding the U.S.-Israel relationship, and AIPAC works with key leaders in power, on both sides of the aisle and both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue, to build support for the mutually beneficial alliance between America and Israel.” 

“President Trump has a strong pro-Israel and anti-Iran record, but his administration evinced early on a lack of expertise and consistency in its policy toward Iran’s nuclear program,” said Michael Makovsky, president and CEO of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. “But recently that position has evolved and strengthened due in no small part to feedback it has gotten.”

“We applaud the administration’s strong statements and actions in support of our ally, commend Congress for passing pro-Israel legislation such as the annual appropriation for lifesaving security assistance to Israel, and appreciate President Trump and congressional leaders both making clear last week that Iran must completely dismantle its nuclear program,” Wittmann said in a statement to JI last week.

Even as Congress has failed to take formal action over points of disagreement with Trump’s recent Middle East directives, some pro-Israel activists suggested their outreach to lawmakers on the Iran talks in particular has yielded substantive results in recent weeks. 

“President Trump has a strong pro-Israel and anti-Iran record, but his administration evinced early on a lack of expertise and consistency in its policy toward Iran’s nuclear program,” said Michael Makovsky, president and CEO of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. “But recently that position has evolved and strengthened due in no small part to feedback it has gotten.”

In public and private settings, JINSA and other pro-Israel groups, as well as Israeli officials and congressional Republicans, “have made the case that Trump needs to stick to his initial policy of dismantlement of Iran’s enrichment facilities,” Makovsky said.

“This has contributed to Trump officials pivoting in the past couple weeks to a tougher ‘no enrichment’ stand,” Makovsky told JI last week.

Eric Levine, a top GOP fundraiser and a board member of the Republican Jewish Coalition who recently launched a federal lobbying practice, said “the most important voice Congress will have is if the president makes a deal with Iran. I think that it’s really important that the Senate remains steadfast and safeguards its powers and insists, if there is a deal, it should be counted as a treaty. If he thinks it’s an amazing deal, he should have no trouble passing it.”

Still, it remains to be seen if the toughest voices against Iran in the Senate who have expressed reservations with enrichment limits and other perceived weaknesses of a potential deal will push back against Trump if he lands on an agreement that does not meet their standards. While some Republican lawmakers have spoken out in recent weeks to set expectations for a deal, including Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), observers say they are skeptical that Congress will ultimately seek to flex its authority if an agreement comes forward.

“The ultimate test will be if there’s a vote on Iran,” said former Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY), a pro-Israel Democrat who opposed Obama’s deal in 2015. “As Congress has grown more performative, it has become less deliberative on foreign policy,” he added. “The speaker’s gavel has become a rubber stamp. The result is an abdication by Congress of its delineated responsibilities.”

Eric Levine, a top GOP fundraiser and a board member of the Republican Jewish Coalition who recently launched a federal lobbying practice, said “the most important voice Congress will have is if the president makes a deal with Iran.”

“I think that it’s really important that the Senate remains steadfast and safeguards its powers and insists, if there is a deal, it should be counted as a treaty,” said Levine. “If he thinks it’s an amazing deal, he should have no trouble passing it,” Levine said of Trump’s efforts to reach what he has suggested is an imminent accord.

It is unclear if the White House will seek approval from Congress for a deal, even as lawmakers have recently stressed that an agreement would have no guarantee of surviving in future administrations if not ratified by the legislative branch.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio affirmed during hearings on Capitol Hill last week that U.S. law requires that any deal with Iran be submitted to Congress for review and approval, noting that he had been in Congress when that law, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, was passed. A White House spokesperson declined to confirm if Trump plans to present a potential deal to Congress when reached by JI on Wednesday, deferring to the president and Witkoff’s remarks from the Oval Office — which did not address the matter.

With Congress increasingly on the sidelines, some pro-Israel groups have turned to alternative forms of advocacy to buttress their lobbying efforts in recent years.

“Advocacy tactics are always changing,” James Thurber, a distinguished professor of government at American University and a leading expert on federal lobbying, told JI. “It is like war where opponents must be flexible, try new tools, assess and adjust. It is essential to be persistently focused on the best strategy, theme and message and to not rely on outdated lobbying tactics.”

“Our world has changed,” said Ann Lewis, a veteran Democratic advisor and a former co-chair of Democratic Majority for Israel, whose formidable political arm has actively engaged in congressional primaries featuring sharp divisions over Israel. “Any definition of advocacy that begins post-election is less effective than it deserves to be.”

Indeed, AIPAC’s foray into campaign politics four years ago, marking a major tactical shift for the organization, was a sign of the changing power dynamics in Washington. The group has since helped to elect a range of congressional allies, while working to unseat some of the fiercest critics of Israel in the House and blocking potential antagonists from getting elected.

“Advocacy tactics are always changing,” James Thurber, a distinguished professor of government at American University and a leading expert on federal lobbying, told JI. “It is like war where opponents must be flexible, try new tools, assess and adjust. It is essential to be persistently focused on the best strategy, theme and message and to not rely on outdated lobbying tactics.”

But as most foreign policy decisions now emanate from the White House, some pro-Israel activists say they remain frustrated by the lack of will from Congress to assert its authority, even as they vow their efforts will continue.

“It is tragic that Congress has so blatantly shirked its responsibility to act as a check and balance on the executive branch,” a senior political operative involved in pro-Israel advocacy recently lamented. “But under no circumstances does that mean we stop fighting for the future of the U.S.-Israel relationship.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said on Tuesday that he is concerned about the views of some of the officials in the White House shaping President Donald Trump’s Iran policy, marking the most critical comments yet from the hawkish senator about Trump’s approach to Iran. 

He urged members of NORPAC, a pro-Israel advocacy organization, to raise the issue in their meetings with anyone in the Trump administration.

“We need clarity with the Trump administration, and as NORPAC talks to the administration, I would say, I worry there are voices in the administration that are not eager to hold up the president’s red line of dismantlement,” Cruz said at NORPAC’s annual Washington lobbying mission, referring to mixed messaging from some U.S. officials on the acceptable contours of a potential new nuclear agreement with Iran. 

Cruz, a staunch opponent of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration, has not formally come out against Trump’s negotiations with Iran, although he said in his remarks that he has “more than a little skepticism” that “this threat can be dealt with diplomatically.” 

But in recent weeks, Cruz has challenged one talking point on the negotiations made by officials including Vice President JD Vance, Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio — that Iran should be allowed to maintain a civil nuclear program. 

“There are some in the Senate who say, Well, Iran can have civilian peaceful nuclear power. Baloney. I see no reason for Iran to have anything nuclear whatsoever,” Cruz said Tuesday, echoing comments he has made in the past. “The only way to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is to eliminate the centrifuges.” 

Trump himself has offered mixed messages on how his administration is approaching the issue of nuclear enrichment. He said in early May that the goal of the Iran talks is “total dismantlement.” Days later, Trump said he had not yet decided whether Iran should be allowed to continue enriching uranium.

Witkoff has also walked back his earlier comments, saying last Sunday that “any deal between the United States and Iran must include an agreement not to enrich uranium.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans penned a letter to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) on Thursday to request that he hold a hearing on how the uptick in antisemitism on college campuses is violating the civil rights of Jewish students. 

The letter was led by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), the top Republican on the committee, and signed by every Republican who serves on the panel, including Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), John Cornyn (R-TX), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Josh Hawley (R-MO), John Kennedy (R-LA), and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). They urged Durbin, who chairs the committee, to convene a hearing “on the civil rights violations of Jewish students” and “the proliferation of terrorist ideology — two issues that fall squarely within this Committee’s purview.”

“With this current state of inaction, it is incumbent upon this Committee to shed light on these civil rights violations,” the group wrote. “This Committee owes it to Jewish students, and all students who attend universities with modest hope of having a safe learning environment, to examine these civil rights violations.”

“Our committee should examine why more is not being done to protect the civil rights of innocent students across America,” they added. “We must also examine the threat to national security posed by the proliferation of radical Islamist ideology in the academy. These pressing issues demand our immediate attention.”

A spokesperson for Durbin did not immediately respond to JI’s request for comment on the letter, which came the same day as a missive from Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) requesting a similar hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. 

Cassidy, the top Republican on the Senate HELP Committee, sent a letter to Sanders on Thursday urging him to convene a hearing in his capacity as committee chairman on the uptick in antisemitism on college campuses. 

Cassidy’s letter, first obtained by Jewish Insider, marks the second time in six months that the Louisiana senator has written to Sanders requesting that he allow for a full committee hearing “on ensuring safe learning environments for Jewish students, as required by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Cassidy released a statement last week re-upping his call for a hearing, though he told JI that effort got no response.

“It is our duty to ensure federal officials are doing everything in their power to uphold the law and ensure students are not excluded from participation, denied the benefits of, or subject to discrimination at school based on race, color, or national origin,” Cassidy wrote to Sanders. “In the six months since my last letter requesting a hearing, the situation has only gotten worse.”

While Republicans have generally been more vocal about their concerns on the issue of antisemitism on college campuses, there have been bipartisan calls for action in the upper chamber. 

Sens. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and James Lankford (R-OK) have also asked Sanders to hold a hearing on antisemitism on college campuses in his capacity as HELP chairman. Similar to Cassidy, they have also not heard back from the Vermont senator. 

Separately, Sens. Rick Scott (R-FL) and Roger Marshall (R-KS) requested a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser’s response to protests at The George Washington University’s campus this week. 

The duo penned a letter on Thursday to Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI), who chairs the committee, requesting he bring in Bowser and D.C. Metropolitan Police Chief Pamela Smith to testify on their respective responses to university requests to bring DCMP onto campus to clear out an anti-Israel encampment, requests Bowser denied. 

On the House side, where Republicans are in the majority, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) launched a chamber-wide effort to address all elements of the campus unrest. 

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), who chairs the Education and Workforce Committee, revealed that in addition to her ongoing probes, she will have the presidents of three other schools testify next month on their responses to protests and instances of antisemitism on their campuses. The presidents of the University of California, Los Angeles; the University of Michigan; and Yale University will be brought in to testify before Foxx’s committee on May 23. 

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, noted that her panel “oversees agencies that dole out massive amounts of taxpayer funded research grants… We will be increasing our oversight of institutions that have received public funding and cracking down on those who are in violation of the Civil Rights Act.”

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) said that his panel was reaching out to the State Department and Homeland Security Department to find out “how many students on a visa have engaged in the radical activity we’ve seen now day after day on college campuses.”

Following Elizabeth Magill’s resignation as the president of the University of Pennsylvania, public attention is now focusing on Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which are facing calls to unseat their own presidents. But Harvard’s Claudine Gay and MIT’s Sally Kornbluth are thus far facing less in-state political pressure for their resignations.

Pressure from Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro played a role in Magill’s ouster; other Pennsylvania political figures, such as Senate candidate David McCormick and Sens. Bob Casey (D-PA) and John Fetterman (D-PA) were also critical of the former Penn president. But such calls have been less prevalent so far from within Massachusetts.

“Strong, moral leadership should be qualification number one for the president of the world’s leading university, but as a tireless advocate for ending the ‘cancel culture’ so pervasive at Harvard over the past decade, I’m not going to rush to cancel the president,” Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA), a Harvard alum, said in a statement to Jewish Insider on Monday. “That’s a decision the university’s governing boards should consider carefully.”

Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA) said Friday, “I would say that in the last two months, Dr. Gay has been making a lot of second and third statements when she should have gotten it right the first time. Genocide is unacceptable, period,” but said he’d leave the decision of her resignation to the school’s board.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said last week, “If you can’t lead, if you can’t stand up and say what’s right and wrong — very much in the extreme cases, and these are the extreme cases — then you’ve got a problem,” but didn’t respond to a question from JI on Monday about whether the schools’ boards should ask their presidents to resign.

Neither did Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) or Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey, a Democrat.

Gay came under increased scrutiny over the weekend over accusations she plagiarized portions of her doctoral thesis, which she has denied.

Several prominent Harvard alums in Congress, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), also did not respond to requests for comment.

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), who led the questioning at a House hearing last week that fueled outrage toward the three college leaders, renewed her calls on Monday for Gay and Kornbluth to be fired.

“As clear evidence of the vastness of the moral rot at every level of these schools, this earthquake has revealed that Harvard and MIT are totally unable to grasp this grave question of moral clarity at this historic moment as the world is watching in horror and disgust. It is pathetic and abhorrent,” Stefanik said in a statement. “The leadership at these universities is totally unfit and untenable.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who led a letter with Stefanik and other Republican Harvard alums in October raising concerns about the treatment of Jewish students on campus, said on his podcast on Monday, “I think we could easily see all three of these college presidents lose their jobs because of this testimony.”

“Both those institutions are hoping this just blows over,” Cruz continued. “They’re defending them in essence by not firing them right away after they witnessed this testimony.”

One day after 31 student organizations at Harvard University published a letter on social media claiming Israel is “entirely responsible” for Hamas terrorists’ murder of 900 Israelis, Jewish student leaders and alumni condemned the university’s handling of the incident and called for a stronger response from Harvard’s administration. 

Harvard President Claudine Gay and other university leaders said in a Monday night statement that the school is “heartbroken by the death and destruction unleashed by the attack by Hamas.” But Jacob Miller, the president of the student board at Harvard Hillel and a former editorial fellow at Jewish Insider, called Harvard’s response a “weak statement [that] fails to capture the gravity of the moment.” He called for the university to “unequivocally condemn these terror attacks, a step they have been unwilling to take thus far.”

“It’s completely wrong to blame Israel for these types of attacks,” Miller told JI on Monday afternoon. “Clearly Israel is not responsible for attacks against its own civilians and it’s also deeply offensive to the Jewish community. I would say it’s antisemitic to blame Israel.” 

Two letters from Harvard students and alumni directly call on the university’s leadership to condemn the anti-Israel statement released by the student organizations, who called themselves the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Groups (PSG). 

One, organized by Harvard Hillel and Harvard Chabad, was signed by more than 2,000 people as of Monday night. “The statement signed by the Palestine Solidarity Committee and dozens of other student groups blaming Israel for the aforementioned attacks is completely wrong and deeply offensive,” the letter states. “There are no justifications for acts of terror as we have seen in the past days. We call on all the student groups who co-signed the statement to retract their signatures from the offensive letter.” 

Signatories include former NBC Universal President Noah Oppenheim, businessman and philanthropist George Rohr, former Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, former U.S. solicitor general Seth Waxman, Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY), Hadar President Ethan Tucker and novelists Dara Horn and Allegra Goodman. 

The Harvard chapter of alumni group Alums for Campus Fairness (ACF), is demanding in a letter set to be released today that the school’s leadership directly condemn the anti-Israel statement released by the student organizations. 

“It’s time for the administration to step up and make a statement,” Naomi Steinberg, a 1988 Harvard graduate who spearheaded the counter letter through ACF, told JI.  “Our strategy is completely alum-based to put pressure on the administration.” 

Steinberg’s daughter, Alana, who graduated from Harvard in 2018, added, “The silence is deafening. In not saying anything they are making a statement.” 

The alumni letter, which is addressed to President Gay, states that “ACF-Harvard holds Hamas and Iran fully responsible for this premeditated day of savagery, which will live in infamy. More Jews were murdered on October 7, 2023, than on any single day since the Holocaust. Hamas has killed and kidnapped babies, raped women, and paraded mutilated bodies of Israelis through the streets of Gaza, often accompanied by celebrations.”

The letter, a copy of which was obtained by JI, goes on to call the joint statement from Harvard student groups “shameful and replete with lies and should be rejected by fair-minded and informed people.” A Harvard spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment on Monday.

“As pro-Israel alumni, ACF stands with Jewish students and faculty on Harvard’s campus during this difficult time. We call on President Gay, the Board of Overseers, and all Harvard administration and faculty to unequivocally support the Jewish and Israeli members of the Harvard community during the difficult days ahead.” 

“We believe that now is the time for the university to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which would place the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Groups’ statement well within the definition of antisemitism, and would give the university even more grounds for condemnation,” the statement concludes. 

The statement from Harvard’s administration, which came after pressure from several prominent alumni, including members of the U.S. House and Senate, did not condemn or mention the letter from the student groups. 

The student letter, titled “Joint Statement by Harvard Palestine Solidarity Groups on the Situation in Palestine,” was signed by 31 student organizations, including the Ivy League’s affiliate of Amnesty International. It condemned Israel, claiming Hamas’ attack “did not happen in a vacuum,” and that the Israeli government has forced Palestinians to live in an “open-air prison for over two decades.” 

“We, the undersigned student organizations, hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence,” the letter reads. “The apartheid regime is the only one to blame.” 

The letter continued, “Today, the Palestinian ordeal enters into uncharted territory. The coming days will require a firm stand against retaliation. We call on the Harvard community to take action to stop the ongoing annihilation of Palestinians.”

Signatories to the letter include the African American Resistance Organization, the Harvard Islamic Society and Harvard Jews for Liberation.

The statement from Harvard’s administration, which came more than 24 hours after the student letter, said the university has “heard an interest from many in understanding more clearly what has been happening in Israel and Gaza.” 

It also said the school has “no illusion that Harvard alone can readily bridge the widely different views of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but we are hopeful that, as a community devoted to learning, we can take steps that will draw on our common humanity and shared values in order to modulate rather than amplify the deep-seated divisions and animosities so distressingly evident in the wider world.” 

Naomi Steinberg told JI that “ACF-Harvard rejects the equivocating statement made by the Harvard administration, which attempts to draw a moral equivalency between Hamas terrorism and Israel’s defensive operations. The statement blatantly ignores and fails to condemn simple facts, among which are: that Hamas has slaughtered, raped, and taken innocent civilians hostage and is using them as pawns on the international stage.” 

“The administration must clearly and unequivocally condemn Hamas as an antisemitic terrorist organization in order to protect Harvard’s Jewish and pro-Israel students, as well as denounce the statement made by PSG,” Steinberg said. 

On Sunday night, more than 100 students gathered at Harvard Hillel to mourn Israeli victims.  

A vigil for “all civilian lives lost and in solidarity with Palestine” is planned for Tuesday night at the university. 

The letter from the student groups sparked almost immediate scrutiny, including from Lawrence Summers, who served as Harvard president from 2001-2006. “In nearly 50 years of @Harvard affiliation, I have never been as disillusioned and alienated as I am today,” Summers wrote on X on Monday.

Summers, who was the Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton and advised former President Barack Obama, wrote, “The silence from Harvard’s leadership, so far, coupled with a vocal and widely reported student groups’ statement blaming Israel solely, has allowed Harvard to appear at best neutral towards acts of terror against the Jewish state of Israel.”

“Instead, Harvard is being defined by the morally unconscionable statement apparently coming from two dozen student groups blaming all the violence on Israel,” he wrote, adding, “I am sickened.”

Lawmakers who attended Harvard also expressed disappointment in the school’s lack of response. 

Immediately after the Harvard administration released its statement, Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-MA) tweeted, “Harvard’s leadership has failed. The president and deans refuse to denounce the antisemitism of Harvard student groups. Instead of moral clarity and courage, they offer word salad approved by committee. I am ashamed of my alma mater.” 

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) wrote on X,  “Terrorism is never justified nor someone else’s fault. As hundreds of Israelis and others, including several Americans, remain kidnapped, injured, or dead, the 31 Harvard organizations that signed a letter holding Israel ‘entirely responsible’ for Hamas’ barbarous terrorism should be condemned, as should Harvard leadership for whom silence is complicity.” He added, “I cannot recall a moment when I’ve been more embarrassed by my alma mater.”

Republican Conference Chair Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), who graduated from Harvard in 2006, also condemned the letter and called on Harvard to respond. 

“It is abhorrent and heinous that Harvard student groups are blaming Israel for Hamas’ barbaric terrorist attacks that have killed over 700 Israelis,” Stefanik tweeted. “Any voice that excuses the slaughter of innocent women and children has chosen the side of evil and terrorism.

“I am calling on the leadership of Harvard to immediately publicly condemn these vile anti-Semitic statements.”

Jason Furman, head of the U.S. National Economic Council under the Obama administration, wrote on X that the letter is “getting global attention and the sentiments it expresses are egregious.”

“Blaming the victims for the slaughter of hundreds of civilians,” Furman continued. “Absolving the perpetrators of any agency. This is morally ignorant and painful for other members of the community.” 

Political scientist Ian Bremmer posted on X that he “can’t imagine who would want to identify with such a group.” “Harvard parents — talk to your educated kids about this.” 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who attended Harvard Law School, wrote, “What the hell is wrong with Harvard?”

At a Monday pro-Israel rally on the Boston Common, former Harvard Hillel director Rabbi Jonah Steinberg called out his former workplace. “We do not want to see crimson in this city become blood on the hands of those student groups who have signed on to such a despicable letter,” said Steinebrg, who is now the regional director of the Anti-Defamation League in New England.

At universities around the U.S., Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapters released statements similar to the Harvard student group letter, but with far fewer student groups signing on. National SJP called for a Day of Resistance on Thursday at colleges including Penn State, New York University and University of Virginia The group also praised Hamas’ “surprise operation against the Zionist enemy which disrupted the very foundation of Zionist settler society.” 

Jewish Insider’s Capitol Hill reporter Marc Rod contributed reporting. 

By Jacob Kornbluh & JI Staff

DEEP DIVE: “How To Lose $1 Billion: Yeshiva University Blows Its Future on Loser Hedge Funds” by Steven I. Weiss in TakePart: “What they couldn’t have known… a decade ago was that the real danger in Yeshiva’s new leadership was not to the school’s spiritual welfare but to its very existence. Over the years to come, the new leadership at Yeshiva would ramp up risk in the school’s investment portfolio, vastly increase spending, and do little to insure against a rainy day. When rainy days did arrive, with the global financial meltdown of 2008, Yeshiva was heavily exposed. Today, its finances are overwhelmed by a sea of red ink. According to a recent announcement by credit ratings agency Moody’s, the school will run out of cash next year. (more…)

By Jacob Kornbluh & JI Staff