Sen. Lindsey Graham’s push for a more aggressive posture in the U.S.-Israel war with Iran is infuriating war skeptics within the MAGA base, who are questioning why the veteran South Carolina Republican has significant influence over U.S. foreign policy.

Graham — who has been calling for military action against the Iranian regime for years — threatened “consequences” for Gulf countries that have refrained from striking Iran despite enduring repeated attacks, and even floated negotiations with foreign governments.

“I’m willing to do a mutual defense agreement with [Saudi Arabia] and give you protection in perpetuity,” he said in a Fox News interview on Monday. “If you were attacked by Iran, we would go to war for you.”

Graham, a close ally of President Donald Trump on foreign policy, also suggested the United States should relocate its military bases from Spain after Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez refused to involve the country in what he called an “illegal war” in the Middle East.

The aggressive remarks drew scathing rebukes from prominent MAGA commentators and activists who have been skeptical of the war, arguing that Graham is overstepping his authority.

“When did Lindsey Graham become our president?” Megyn Kelly, the onetime Fox News host turned independent podcaster, wrote on X. She warned about Graham’s influence on Trump and described his rhetoric as dangerous.

“Let’s get real. The problem with Lindsay Graham isn’t (just) that he’s a homicidal maniac, it’s that Trump likes and is listening to him, and Trump’s favorite channel is parading him around like a Hefner bunny in stockings on every show,” she said, referring to her former network home.

A spokesperson for Graham did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the criticism. When asked for comment, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the president has a good and candid relationship with Graham.

“Republicans are unanimously supportive of President Trump’s bold decision to launch combat operations and end the threat posed by the Iranian terrorist regime,” she said in a statement.

Graham successfully lobbied Trump to take military action against Iran and has maintained a strong relationship with the president, who he described as “Ronald Reagan plus plus plus.” But his calls for a more aggressive military posture in Iran and strong allegiance to Israel prompted critics on the right to quickly pile on.

Conservative commentator Matt Walsh echoed similar criticisms to Kelly, writing on X: “Where does he think he derives the authority to unilaterally offer permanent ‘defense agreements’ to foreign countries?”

And former Rep. Matt Gaetz, Trump’s one-time pick to be attorney general and now a One America News host, was critical of a Fox News interview where Graham repeatedly praised Israel and its military leadership. “Moving ‘all our stuff to Israel’ is not America First,” Gaetz wrote.

The backlash highlights a divide inside Trump’s political base over opposition to further U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts, with anti-interventionists voices becoming increasingly critical as the war in the Middle East escalates.

Over half of U.S. voters opposed the military action in Iran and a majority believe the conflict could last for months or more, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Monday.

But Republicans have overwhelmingly supported Trump’s moves, putting the skeptics broadly in the party’s minority. Eighty-five percent of Republicans surveyed said they supported the military action in Iran, with just 11 percent opposed.

The White House has publicly refused to rule out the potential for boots on the ground in Iran, as the administration sends mixed messages for how long the war could last.

And some of Graham’s critics argue that he is unnecessarily raising the prospect of Americans being deployed.

“There are some in the Senate that advocate for war everywhere. Lindsey Graham is one of them. He does NOT tell the President what to do, nor does he control Congress,” Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) posted on X. “I have spoken with the administration a number of times, as well as other members of Congress over the last week or so, and nothing has changed regarding boots on the ground. NO BOOTS on the ground.”

DORAL, Florida — House Republican leaders plan to advance an 18-month extension of a key surveillance law ahead of an expiration deadline next month, Intelligence Chair Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said in interviews Tuesday.

The White House is backing the extension of the spy powers in question, known as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as the April 20 deadline approaches. The renewal would not include new restrictions on intelligence agencies supported by some lawmakers.

Scalise did not give specifics on when it would come up for a vote, but two people granted anonymity to discuss internal planning said GOP leaders are eyeing a floor vote the week of April 13.

“We’re going to be talking to all our members, like on any big issue,” Scalise said. “But the president’s made it clear why it’s important.”

President Donald Trump mentioned the renewal in his remarks to lawmakers gathered for the annual House GOP retreat Monday. But he threw a wrench into the plans for advancing a clean extension when he endorsed the idea of attaching the FISA reauthorization to the updated elections bill he called his “No. 1 priority.”

“Maybe you put them together, because a lot of people feel very strongly about FISA,” Trump said.

The surveillance measure is one of several must-pass bills Speaker Mike Johnson laid out for 2026 in a closed-door meeting with House Republicans Tuesday morning, according to four people in the room.

Crawford and Scalise did not rule out the possibility of attaching the GOP elections overhaul, known as the SAVE America Act, to the FISA extension.

“I’m open to whatever it takes to get things done and sometimes, you’ve got to be creative to get things done,” Crawford said. “It’s definitely a strategic way of getting it across the finish line potentially. We just have to see if that’s the appropriate course of action.”

Section 702, which allows the government to collect the data of noncitizens abroad without a warrant, could be an issue for hard-line conservatives, who were upset when it was extended in 2024.

Asked Tuesday if there plans to discuss the matter at the retreat, which continues till Wednesday, Crawford said, “Not yet, but the day is still young.”

DORAL, Florida — Speaker Mike Johnson said Tuesday he has discussed “our tone and our message” with the two House Republicans who have made anti-Muslim remarks in recent days but defended the right of the lawmakers to oppose “the imposition of Sharia law.”

“Look, there’s a lot of energy in the country, and a lot of popular sentiment, that the demand to impose Sharia law in America is a serious problem,” Johnson said at a news conference during the House GOP policy retreat at the Trump Doral resort. “That’s what animates me.”

Sharia law refers to a set of religious principles that guide devout Muslims, and Republicans often refer to it in the context of Islamic fundamentalism. Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) posted on social media Monday that “Muslims don’t belong in American society.”

“Pluralism is a lie,” he added, later following up with a graphic showing “what Islam offers” — some examples of which included “rape,” “beheadings” and “burning people alive.”

Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.) wrote in a post on X last month that “If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.”

Neither Ogles nor Fine differentiated between the Muslim faith and Sharia law.

Johnson has been under pressure to condemn the rhetoric, particularly from Ogles, but the Louisiana Republican suggested Tuesday only that he regretted the choice of words, not the sentiment.

“Our Constitution is the greatest in the world. … And one of the principles that we believe in, stated first in the nation’s birth certificate, is that all of us are created equal by God,” said Johnson Tuesday. “We respect everyone’s beliefs and their right to live out their beliefs and to speak freely about their beliefs, and have that conviction.

“But when you seek to come to a country and not assimilate but to impose Sharia law … that is the conflict that people are talking about,” he added. “It’s not about people as Muslims, it is about people who seek to impose a different belief system that is in direct conflict with the constitution.”