Congress

Trump’s Iran endgame grates on Hill Republicans

Published

2 months ago

June 24, 2026

The White House would prefer Congress handle the Iran war’s endgame something like this: Pony up, and don’t ask too many questions.

That approach is grating on many congressional Republicans, who are chafing at the idea that President Donald Trump’s administration is asking for hundreds of billions of dollars in fresh military funding without briefing most of Congress on the cease-fire agreement Trump signed last week.

As House lawmakers returned to the Capitol this week for the first time since the “memorandum of understanding” was inked, even GOP members who are generally supportive of the president said they had a hard time understanding why administration had not been more forthcoming with details on the agreement and the nuclear talks it sets up.

Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho, a senior appropriator, told reporters “it wouldn’t hurt” to get a briefing from Trump officials this week “because mostly what I hear is what I hear from the news.”

Even ahead of briefing, a swath of angrier Republicans has grown livid at the text of the Trump-signed memo, which includes an agreement to lift U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil sales and pursue a $300 billion Iranian “reconstruction” plan in order to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and end the hostilities.

Vice President JD Vance told reporters last week that the administration was “quite confident that we can temporarily lift those sanctions without going to Congress and seeking their approval.”

“The Administration acts like they want a deal much more than the Ayatollah regime,” Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said in a text message, joining multiple hawkish senators in expressing dismay. “Committing $300B in reconstruction, sanctions relief, pulling back forces near Iran and putting pressure on Israel looks like weakness.”

Trump sought to quiet the internal skeptics Tuesday, telling reporters that anyone who has been critical of the deal “has to be educated, even if they’re friends of mine.” He is set to travel to Capitol Hill Wednesday to sign a bipartisan housing bill and meet with restless GOP senators who may press him for a defense of the agreement.

But the vast majority of House members have not heard anything beyond administration talking points nearly a week after details of the memorandum first emerged. The White House sent the full text of the agreement to Congress Thursday — after Trump had signed it and administration officials had briefed reporters on the document.

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told reporters Tuesday he expects House members will receive a briefing on Iran this week. Later, Johnson indicated in an interview a planned briefing from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to a select group of House Republicans Wednesday was the only briefing lawmakers should expect for now.

“The secretary is the ultimate authority on it, so I’m sure he’ll provide a lot of information,” Johnson said of Hegseth, who was not directly involved in the peace negotiations.

He did not commit in the interview to additional briefings for a wider swath of lawmakers: “We’ll have to see. I mean, we’ll see what the secretary does, and then evaluate after that.”

Some White House officials, including Vance, briefed select groups of GOP lawmakers last week on the agreement, including party leaders and top lawmakers on foreign affairs committees. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a GOP defense hawk who was initially skeptical of the deal, said he spoke on the phone with Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East. The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), said his panel has not been briefed on the agreement.

The grumbling from Hill Republicans is shaping up to be a major pain point as Trump officials ramp up pressure to approve new Pentagon spending. A top Defense official told key lawmakers last week that a $78 billion emergency infusion is needed to pay for the Iran war — on top of the $350 billion in defense funding Trump has demanded Republicans deliver in a new party-line bill.

A formal request for emergency spending could land on Capitol Hill as soon as this week, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) hammered the idea Monday, telling reporters that Trump and Hegseth are responsible for “Operation Epic Failure.”

“Their reckless and costly war of choice has been a disaster for the American people,” Jeffries said. “And the notion that they’ll come up to Capitol Hill to try to get an additional $80 billion to continue to waste taxpayer money on an endless war in the Middle East that Donald Trump promised he wouldn’t start, but would stop, is beyond reckless.”

One senior Republican involved in the talks about the party-line bill said Trump’s defense funding request is “tough” for Republicans to deliver, given the pushback from various corners of the House GOP over the size of the ask and the debate over how to pay for it.

GOP Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.) issued a blunt warning in a Tuesday X post: “The Pentagon wants $891 billion this year and still can’t pass a clean audit. … My rule is simple: show me you passed an audit, then we can talk about more money.”

Burlison is among the front-runners to be the next chair of the hard-line House Freedom Caucus and is a member of the Republican Study Committee. Hegseth is set to appear at the invitation of the latter group Wednesday to make the case for the new military spending requests. But he, like Trump, could face sharp questions about the peace deal, which many Republicans believe is all too similar to the 2015 agreement Barack Obama brokered as president.

“I’m always willing to give peace a chance,” Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.), an RSC member who is planning to attend the Hegseth briefing, said. But he noted the U.S. needs to make sure that Iran doesn’t drive a “wedge” between America and Israel.

Stutzman also said he was looking forward to the Defense secretary providing a detailed “fiscal update” of how much the Pentagon has spent on the war and how much artillery needs to be backfilled, while adding that will need to have “hard conversations” about finding offsets to any new military spending.

Rep. Tom Barrett, a Republican facing a highly competitive race against another military veteran for his Michigan seat, said in an interview he was concerned that the administration had not been more forthcoming in answering lawmakers’ questions.

He said he anticipated those attending the Hegseth briefing would press the secretary on the Iran agreement in addition to the administration’s funding request.

Republicans are also internally divided over whether Congress needs to vote on any final nuclear agreement the Trump administration might reach with Iran in the coming months, as would seem to be required under a 2015 law passed as the Obama deal was coming together. The memorandum sets out a 60-day period for further talks.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) argued just hours after Trump announced the initial agreement with Iran that a vote wouldn’t be “necessary.” A few minutes later, Graham declared in response that there would be “no way” Congress would forgo a vote on any final nuclear deal.

Weighing heavily on vulnerable GOP incumbents is that the 60-day window expires in August, just weeks before the midterm elections. Trump has threatened to go back to widespread bombing against Iran if the talks don’t produce a satisfactory result.

Johnson, asked how this was different from Obama’s deal, defended Trump and reiterated that there was no deal yet.

“You’ve got to allow this to play out,” he said, praising Trump for having “handled Iran.”

He added that he was “heartened” that gas prices had dipped and mostly declined to weigh in on the sanctions relief Trump promised, noting “there’s a lot of moving parts right now” and that he has “always been a supporter of strong sanctions against Iran.”

“I’ve got enough to do to manage the House over here,” he said. “I’m not going to tell the administration how to negotiate that.”

Riley Rogerson contributed to this report.

Congress

House Democrats watch closely as Hakeem Jeffries vows to rein in rogue members

Published

32 minutes ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democrats have spent the better part of two years looking on in glee as House Republicans have struggled to wrangle their narrow majority and enact a consensus agenda.

Now, eyeing a potentially small majority of their own, they are eager not to see the shoe quickly land on the other foot — which is why Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is under fierce internal pressure to crack down on a surprise rebellion this week.

The decision by Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) and Jared Golden (D-Maine) to support a Republican procedural measure that would have otherwise failed — essentially bailing out Speaker Mike Johnson’s floor agenda — prompted Jeffries and fellow Democratic leaders to decry a “breach of trust” and promise a “serious response.”

Rank-and-file members are watching closely to see if Jeffries follows through on those threats and moves to rein in rogue members who could undermine the party agenda and his own leadership.

“If there’s no understanding that we need to stay together on procedural measures, then we’re going to be like Republicans,” said Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Rules Committee Democrat and a Jeffries ally. “I mean, they can’t get anything done because everybody’s going off in different directions.”

Many Democrats are hoping Jeffries will set an assertive tone and send a message that some protest tactics will not be tolerated in a future majority. The situation is of particular interest to members given the slate of insurgent hard-left members poised to join the caucus next term — some of whom have openly discussed adopting strategies embraced by the hard right.

“It’s an open secret — we don’t want to end up with our own Freedom Caucus,” one House Democrat granted anonymity to speak candidly said in an interview, referring to the fractious ultraconservative group. “You see how a core group of people can stop the workings here … when it’s continual and it’s just about grandstanding. … We don’t want that.”

“I’m not saying that those folks coming in are going to operate in that way,” the member added. “We don’t know. But we’ve got to tighten up the systems.”

Already, House Democrats have competing views about how and when to punish the rogue members. Multiple members, for example, have privately suggested kicking Gluesenkamp Perez off of the Appropriations Committee — a highly coveted assignment.

Gluesenkamp Perez represents a district President Donald Trump won in 2024.

But others acknowledge that leaders have little leverage against the duo. Golden is leaving the House at the end of this term, and Gluesenkamp Perez is one of the most vulnerable Democrats in the country.

Keeping her seat in a district President Donald Trump won by 3 percentage points in 2024 could determine the outcome of the midterm elections, and she has made her clashes with party leaders a core part of her political identity.

Some members — including progressives who used procedural votes for leverage during Nancy Pelosi’s speakership — also cautioned leadership from overpolicing members.

Asked about how Jeffries should “punish” the members, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), a former chair of the Progressive Caucus, said, “We’re not kids, and he’s not our dad.”

“I’m elected by 750,000 people. I get to make my decisions about what I want,” Jayapal said before adding, “At the same time, I think there has to be a strong commitment to the team.”

“I think that there can be certain reasonable expectations — for example, to flag how one may intend to vote on something,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said. “I also think that the idea that there will be consequences depending on how that is laid out could create a slippery slope.”

Both of the rebels are shrugging off the intense reaction from Democratic leaders and some of their colleagues. Golden said he voted with Republicans to advance a bill he cosponsored benefiting lobstermen in Maine; Gluesenkamp Perez said she voted to support Golden and “people who make their livelihoods and heritage on the water.”

“I do not have a polished political strategy,” she told reporters Wednesday. “I know my community, and that’s who sent me here, and that’s who I am thinking about.”

Many of their Democratic colleagues aren’t ready to just let it go, however. Several argued in interviews that if every member broke ranks on procedural votes to advance legislation they support, the party would lose significant leverage.

Golden, left, is retiring after his term ends.

“I am generally of the view that if you believe that you are a free agent in this town, maybe you don’t get to use the team locker room anymore,” Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) said, adding that he could not think of a potential punishment “within the scope of what leadership can do that could be opposed by the caucus.”

Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) said “some tough love“ might be necessary to send a message to the broader caucus: “We’re all in this together.”

Amid the agita, it’s not clear how quickly Jeffries will act. An internal committee dealing with caucus rules met Wednesday and discussed the matter but did not advance any specific proposals for sanctions or rules changes.

Jeffries himself has not committed to a timeline for imposing consequences against the two defectors. He told reporters Wednesday he wants to pursue action “sooner rather than later” as he faces internal questions about whether he can exert the same level of control over Democrats as his predecessor did.

Pelosi dealt with rebellions of her own, including moderates who repeatedly voted with Republicans to amend Democratic bills on the floor. But she pointedly commented on the disloyalty on display this week, with Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez essentially voting to advance the GOP floor agenda.

“We didn’t even consider that anybody would do that,” she said Tuesday. “We never had that problem, so I’m disappointed that they did that.”

Another lawmaker who was happy to comment Wednesday was Johnson, who has routinely contended with GOP mutinies during his time in office — including one that Gluesenkamp Perez and Golden bailed him out of Tuesday.

Jeffries “has a serious problem in his caucus,” he told reporters, citing the “warring factions in his party.”

“I don’t see a way out of that thicket,” he said. “But I’m not going to tell him how to govern his conference, and he doesn’t, or shouldn’t, be telling me how to.”

Congress

Tillis renews calls for Hegseth’s ouster

Published

6 hours ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Sen. Thom Tillis renewed his call for President Donald Trump to fire Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday, following the resignation earlier this week of Army Secretary Dan Driscoll.

“I have never witnessed more inept management of the brave men and women who serve our country,” the outgoing two-term North Carolina Republican wrote on X. “He is intimidated by competence and retreats to ginning up culture wars instead of soberly attending to the vital work of our national defense and the health and well-being of our fighting force.”

Driscoll, whose long-rumored resignation became official this week, had clashed with Hegseth over the Defense secretary’s reluctance to modernize the Army and his firings of dozens of senior officers. Hegseth has focused more on cultural issues — including grooming and fitness standards — within the department.

“If we had a @SecWar who maintained the same priorities and forward-thinking, he would be fighting to retain talented leaders like Dan and the many flag officers he has forced into retirement,” Tillis charged. “Instead, he is creating a leadership void at the top of our military ranks.”

The White House and Pentagon did not respond to requests for comment on Tillis’ post.

Tillis, who is not running for reelection in November, has openly clashed with Hegseth since Trump tapped the former Fox News host to lead the Pentagon in 2024.

In May, Tillis told POLITICO he believed Hegseth had misinformed Trump on the dynamics of a war in Iran. Firing Hegseth, he said, was on “a Christmas wish list.” In a book set to be released next month, Tillis branded Hegseth — along with a handful of other White House officials — as “MAGATS” and accused them of “not looking around corners and taking care of this president.”

It hasn’t earned him friends in the administration.

“The media said how brave he was to take me on, but he wasn’t brave, he was just the opposite – HE WAS A QUITTER!” Trump wrote on Truth Social in May. “Now he can have all the fun he wants for a few months, with some of his RINO friends, screwing the Republican Party. In the end it will only get bigger, and better, and stronger, than ever before!”

Congress

No immediate plans to punish rogue House Democrats for bailing out GOP

Published

6 hours ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Despite a stern message from party leaders, a panel of House Democrats did not settle on any particular consequences for the pair of lawmakers who crossed party lines Tuesday to advance an otherwise troubled slate of Republican-led bills.

Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and fellow leaders said the matter would be reviewed by the Democratic Committee on Caucus Rules, which convened Wednesday morning for a prescheduled listening session.

Attendees discussed possible changes to the rules that govern House Democrats’ conduct for next term. Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.), the panel’s chair, suggested to reporters that discussion included what should happen if members vote with Republicans on procedural measures like the one Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) supported Tuesday.

“There’s been a variety of suggestions to change our rules, not just regarding the last couple days, but several suggestions that have been percolating for some time,” Levin said, while adding that any changes would happen only “in the next couple of months.”

The lack of urgency stands in contrast to the stern statement Jeffries and fellow leaders made Tuesday about the rogue members’ “breach of trust” — not to mention the rage some rank-and-file House Democrats are expressing. Some have floated removing the pair from their committees — particularly Gluesenkamp Perez’ seat on the exclusive Appropriations panel.

“Somebody else who is willing to think about other people needs to be on that seat, that exclusive committee,” said one House Democrat granted anonymity to speak candidly.

Jeffries, who was not present at the meeting, also seemed to have a speedier timeline for responding to Gluesenkamp Perez and Golden. He told reporters after the meeting wrapped that he was waiting on feedback from Levin and that the caucus would have conversations “amongst the family about the best way to move forward.”

Asked about his timeline for action against the pair, Jeffries said, “Sooner rather than later.”