Congress

Trump’s Iran endgame grates on Hill Republicans

Published

4 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

GOP-linked PAC spends over $1M to boost third-party socialist in Ohio Senate race

Published

9 hours ago

October 19, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

A GOP-aligned super PAC has more-than tripled its investment in the Ohio Senate race over the last week as it seeks to boost a socialist candidate — an apparent attempt to sink former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown’s chances.

Enough Promises Ohio, which was created last month, has spent a combined $1.58 million to promote Greg Levy and oppose Brown, according to recent filings from the Federal Election Commission. Levy, a candidate with the Party for Socialism and Liberation, is also on the ballot in the tight race for Senate between Brown and Ohio GOP Sen. Jon Husted. He’s running a longshot bid, currently polling at 5 percent, but could siphon away more progressive voters from Brown.

It wouldn’t be the first time this cycle that operatives for a major political party attempted to raise a third-party candidate’s profile to meddle with the outcome. Recent public polling shows a dead heat between Brown and Husted in the race.

The super PAC spent a total of $828,359 on mailers supporting Levy or opposing Brown. Spectrum News, The Washington Post and Axios previously reported Enough Promises Ohio spent $400,000 on such mailers, but the expenditure has since grown.

The group also poured an additional $753,000 into ads supporting Levy and opposing Brown over the weekend, including one video ad on Google that knocks Brown as someone who “sold us out” and boosts “real progressive Greg Levy.”

The campaign finance filings show Enough Promises Ohio used a printing company linked to a Republican political firm, Whistletop Strategies. Whistletop has worked with an affiliate of President Donald Trump’s MAGA Inc. super PAC and lists as its “director” Big Dog Strategies, which helped run Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno’s 2024 election campaign and is a consultant for the Ohio GOP.

Enough Promises Ohio did not respond to a request for comment. Neither did Big Dog Strategies.

Amy Natoce, a spokesperson for the Husted campaign, told Blue Light News, “our campaign had no involvement with the group you are referencing. Therefore, we have no comment.”

Levy himself has distanced himself from the PAC, calling its boosting of him an “attempted deception of voters” that’s “a form of digital blackface.” Levy is Black. His spokesperson, Charlie Koenigsmark, also told Blue Light News he and the campaign “completely condemn this attempt to manipulate voters.”

Brown did not respond to a request for comment.

Congress

Capitol agenda: AI experts to school Congress wanted

Published

17 hours ago

October 19, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Artificial intelligence is challenging some lawmakers’ confidence that they have the capacity to regulate it.

The slow pace of Congress and a challenging political environment are already working against lawmakers under pressure to address AI threats. There’s also a significant gap in tech policy expertise.

“We need to dramatically increase the base knowledge of Congress if we’re going to legislate meaningfully,” Rep. Sam Liccardo said in a recent interview.

One big concern is at the staffing level: getting people with a deep understanding of the technology around rank-and-file members. Aides who specialize in tech policy often get lured to private companies with huge salaries that can be hard to resist.

Some lawmakers, like Rep. Mark Takano, are advocating for an in-house hub — something like the long-defunct Office of Technology Assessment, which helped Congress understand emerging technology and its social and policy implications from 1972 until it was scrapped in 1995. A Takano aide said he’ll introduce a bipartisan bill to restore such an office in the coming weeks.

Members have also been leaning on fellows from TechCongress — a nonprofit founded by former congressional aide Travis Moore that places technology experts in member and committee offices.

Moore said in an interview that there are plenty of people who want to work on Capitol Hill, but it’s a matter of “Congress’s will and capacity to absorb that talent.”

Not everybody buys into the theory that staffing will solve the problem. Some conservatives, in particular, have seized on the lack of member expertise to argue for a hands-off regulatory approach.

“We don’t understand it well enough,” Sen. Cynthia Lummis, who has repeatedly brought in technology experts through the TechCongress fellowship, told reporters this month. “We don’t have the expertise to do it.”

“Do you really trust the members of Congress, who barely understand AI, to write the regulations around something?” added Rep. Eric Burlison in an interview last month.

There are a few members who consider themselves fluent in AI policy, including several who have joined working groups on it. They’ve taken educating their colleagues into their own hands but have not always seen great enthusiasm.

Liccardo, for example, recounted how he has brought in experts to brief lawmakers — including huge AI industry figures like Sam Altman of OpenAI and Dario Amodei of Anthropic— only to struggle to convince members to attend.

“We have had challenges in the past trying to get folks’ attention to the issues,” he said.

What else we’re watching:

— WRIGHT: LAWMAKERS ARE ‘WRONG’ ON RUSSIA: Energy Secretary Chris Wright on Sunday dismissed bipartisan criticism when asked about lawmakers warning that President Donald Trump’s diesel deal would help finance Russia. “In fact, they are all wrong. They don’t understand what President Trump’s doing,” Wright said on ABC News. Wright also defended Trump’s decision Friday exempting Russia from key sanctions outlined in the late Sen. Lindsey Graham sanctions law, which was enacted just last month and set to take effect Sunday. The moves have drawn bipartisan outcry.

— PILOT BILLS GET COMEDIAN’S HELP — Lawmakers are targeting year-end enactment of a pair of bipartisan bills aimed at helping pilots deal with mental health issues and hazy medication regulations, thanks in part to a comedian with an HBO show. Lawmakers and others credit Nathan Fielder, star of the docu-comedy “The Rehearsal” for raising awareness on the stresses pilots face in the hit show last year. They say Fielder wasn’t actively involved in lobbying despite pleas from some for help. “Frankly, I’m glad he elevated the story,” Rep. Sean Casten, one of the lawmakers leading the mental health legislation, told Safa. After passing the Senate late last month, the two bills are awaiting House action.

Katherine Tully-McManus, Jalen Beckford and Safa Wahidi contributed to this report.

Congress

Wanted: Tech experts to help Congress regulate AI

Published

20 hours ago

October 19, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Lawmakers are under pressure to pass legislation to address the threats from advanced artificial intelligence, but many have serious doubts they have the capacity to regulate the technology’s explosive growth.

Few are expecting lawmakers themselves — some of whom still proudly use flip phones — to become AI experts overnight. But while even congressional Luddites acknowledge there is urgency for Capitol Hill to quickly expand its expertise in tech policy to help with legislating, regulating and conducting effective oversight, there’s no consensus yet on how to achieve it.

“We need to dramatically increase the base knowledge of Congress if we’re going to legislate meaningfully,” Rep. Sam Liccardo (D-Calif.) said in a recent interview.

Congress already has a long track record of lagging behind as technological innovations transform the world beyond Washington: It has adopted a largely hands-off approach to regulating the Internet as it integrated into everyday life in the past 40 years, relying instead on existing laws that govern other industries and taking smaller piecemeal bites.

The challenging political environment won’t help speed things along now: Democrats are split over whether the answer is to put guardrails on the AI industry or ban “superintelligence” entirely, while many Republicans — including President Donald Trump — warn that any regulation would stifle innovation and cede ground to China.

Some members consider themselves fluent in AI policy, including several who have joined working groups on AI policy. Reps. Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.) and Don Beyer (D-Va.) have pursued masters degrees in AI and machine learning, in addition to many others who are self-taught.

The “overwhelming number” of lawmakers have some idea of what AI is and what it is capable of, Rep. Valerie Foushee (D-N.C.), co-chair of a House Democratic commission on AI policy, said in a recent interview. But, she added, “None of us can say that we understand where it’s going.”

The larger concern is at the staff level — putting people with real expertise around the rank-and-file members who don’t have the bandwidth or interest in educating themselves on the frontier of the industry. Aides who do specialize in tech policy often get lured to the industry with huge salaries that can be hard to resist.

That’s where Travis Moore, a former congressional staffer, has spent more than a decade trying to help.

In 2015, Moore left his post as legislative director for Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and founded TechCongress, a nonprofit that places technology experts in member and committee offices. The hope is that those offices will be convinced to hire those fellows full-time — or at least recognize the need to secure in-house tech policy expertise.

“You should have a technologist at the table to at least mitigate the unknown unknowns,” Moore said, regardless of what members themselves know about technology.

As AI has boomed, so has demand for TechCongress’ fellows: In the last two years, Moore has fielded more than 1,200 applications for about 36 fellowship slots through the program, which does not accept funding from corporations or tech companies.

Of nearly 130 fellows selected through the program since its founding, Moore said 32 were later hired full-time. Two-thirds of all the fellows have pursued careers in public service, either on Capitol Hill or other government roles.

Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.), one of the leaders on AI policy on Capitol Hill, is among the offices that currently employs a TechCongress fellow. The House Judiciary Committee, the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) also host fellows.

Moore says his initiative has shown there are plenty of people who want to work on Capitol Hill to help inform some of the most pressing issues of the moment — even when more lucrative salaries in the private sector beckon.

“The constraint is not talent supply,” Moore said in an interview. Rather, he said, it’s a matter of “Congress’s will and capacity to absorb that talent.”

Some on Capitol Hill are advocating for an in-house hub — something like the long-defunct Office of Technology Assessment, which helped Congress understand emerging technology and its social and policy implications from 1972 until it was scrapped in 1995.

Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) has long championed efforts to revive the OTA for years and expects to reintroduce his legislation restoring the office in the coming weeks with bipartisan backing, spokesperson Austin Clark said.

Not everybody buys into the theory that staffing will solve the problem. Some conservatives, in particular, have seized on the lack of member expertise to argue for a hands-off approach to regulation.

“We don’t understand it well enough,” Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), who has repeatedly brought in technology experts through the TechCongress fellowship, told reporters this month. “You can’t address it based on what policymakers know about it on a one-size-fits-all universal basis. … We don’t have the expertise to do it.”

“Do you really trust the members of Congress, who barely understand AI, to write the regulations around something?” added Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.) in an interview last month.

Others don’t see a hopeless cause, but a convenient excuse.

“I understand it’s hard, but lots of things we do here are hard,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said in an interview, noting that lawmakers have had to bone up quickly on everything from nuclear energy policy to complex weapons systems and advances in health care, like biologic drugs.

“I just think the industry wants us to believe that there’s seven people who understand this, and that’s just not true,” Murphy said, accusing some of his colleagues of “just throwing shit up against the wall to try to figure out how to justify doing nothing.”

A few members on both sides of the aisle have taken educating their colleagues into their own hands. Obernotle says he helped tutor more than two dozen House members through the bipartisan AI working group he chaired in the previous Congress.

Liccardo, who represents parts of Silicon Valley, recounted how he has brought in experts to brief lawmakers — including huge AI industry figures like Sam Altman of OpenAI, Dario Amodei of Anthropic and Jensen Huang of Nvidia — only to struggle to convince members to attend.

“We have had challenges in the past trying to get folks’ attention to the issues,” he said. “We have a lot of work to do, I’ll just say, to get everybody up to speed.”

Riley Rogerson, Jordain Carney and Mia McCarthy contributed to this report.