Senate Republicans are still waiting for details of the preliminary U.S.-Iran agreement. But they’re already making one thing clear: Congress should have a vote on any final deal.

President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf signed a memorandum of understanding on Monday, formally giving the two countries 60 days to negotiate an agreement.

While there’s a healthy dose of skepticism about the deal and whether it will actually materialize, Republicans want a say on the eventual agreement.

“If there is a final deal, and I hope there is, it should come to the Senate for approval,” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told reporters on Tuesday.

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said if the final agreement is a treaty — and it “sounds like a treaty,” he said — then it “certainly seems like” the deal should be subject to a vote by Congress.

And Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, echoed his colleagues.

For now, it appears Trump agrees with Senate Republicans. 

During a bilateral meeting at the Group of Seven (G7) summit in France on Tuesday, Trump suggested he would be open to sending the eventual deal to Congress. “I wouldn’t mind,” he said.

“I never thought about sending. Never even thought about it,” Trump added. “But I will — I will send it to Congress. I like the idea.”

Trump’s comments quickly made their way to Washington, where Republican senators like Lindsey Graham and Roger Marshall repeatedly pointed out that Trump said he would give Congress a vote. 

“I hope he does,” Marshall said.

Despite the GOP desire for a vote, it’s far from clear Congress will ever hold one. For starters, the talks could fall apart before a final agreement is reached. And if the deal ultimately resembles elements of the Obama-era accord that Republicans long opposed, GOP leaders may be reluctant to force lawmakers into a politically fraught vote — particularly if Democrats line up against it.

The dynamic highlights a familiar tension on Capitol Hill.

For years — decades, even — lawmakers have talked about replacing the sweeping 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force with a more targeted authorization. The law has been used to justify dozens of military operations in more than 22 countries. But when it comes time to take ownership of a new war authorization, many in Congress seem content to defer to the president and the nearly 25-year-old law.

To be sure, there were some GOP voices on Tuesday who suggested a vote on Trump’s emerging Iran deal isn’t needed. 

Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., argued that a law signed amid the debate over the Obama-era deal never explicitly required a vote — just congressional review.

“You might decide your opinion is we should vote on it, but there is no requirement that we do,” Schmitt said.

And some other Republican senators kept their cards close to their vest, insisting they need more information on the deal before asserting that a vote is necessary.

“Everybody’s got to see what it is first,” Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., said. “None of us have seen it.”

Pressed on whether he wants a vote, regardless of the terms of the deal, the Oklahoma Republican offered a congressional truth: “It depends on what the deal is.”

Part of the insistence on a vote, Republicans say, is because the Iran nuclear deal brokered under President Barack Obama — formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA — wasn’t affirmed by Congress. That allowed Trump to singlehandedly dismantle it  during his first administration.

This time, lawmakers say they want a deal to outlast the Trump presidency.

Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah, said Congress should “absolutely” vote on the final agreement, if negotiators reach one.

“That was one of the problems with President Obama’s deal,” Curtis said.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said he thought it “makes more sense” to have Congress give any agreement its stamp of approval, pointing to Obama’s now defunct deal.

“Obama made a mistake when he didn’t do the work to have it rise to a level of a treaty, and I believe that we should here, otherwise it’s only good for two and a half years,” Tillis said.

“Why don’t we do the hard work of making sure that it has staying power?” he added.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle — particularly Republicans — would be happy to approve an Iran peace agreement that advances U.S. interests. Republicans are inclined to support Trump, and few lawmakers seem eager to prolong the Iran “excursion,” as the president has put it.

But approving a deal that’s less-than-stellar for the United States isn’t such a popular prospect. And congressional leaders might hesitate to put the agreement up for a vote out of fear that lawmakers may shoot it down. 

A failed vote would put Trump and the United States in a difficult position.

Just having to vote on the deal could put lawmakers in a tough political spot of their own — and right before the midterm elections. 

If the final agreement ends up resembling the Obama-era JCPOA, Republicans could be forced to either support a deal they’ve long criticized or risk drawing Trump’s ire. Neither choice is ideal.

Meanwhile, if Democrats vote against a final deal, they could face accusations that they don’t want the war to end. Some Republicans see political value in forcing Democrats to take a position.

“When there’s a deal, of course, put the Democrats on record,” Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, told MS NOW.

But if the final deal is one Republicans don’t love, don’t expect the agreement to come before Congress.

Already on Monday, several Republicans expressed nervousness about the early contours of a deal, as described in press reports about a yet-to-be released memorandum of understanding. And on Tuesday, the top Senate Republican — John Thune of South Dakota — said he had still not been briefed on the contents of the memorandum. 

A handful of Republicans revealed to reporters that they had been in touch with senior U.S. officials to get some of their questions answered. 

Moreno, for instance, said he was given some details about the agreement on Monday from Vice President JD Vance and White House peace envoy — and Trump son-in-law — Jared Kushner.

Asked about the delay in revealing the preliminary memorandum, Moreno insisted the Trump administration was just being “methodical,” in part so as not to upend the internal politics in Iran.

“It’s not going to kill everybody to just take a breath and wait until Friday,” Moreno said.

The post GOP senators say they want a vote on an Iran deal — for now appeared first on MS NOW.

They say timing is everything, but for President Donald Trump, it’s increasingly becoming a political liability on Capitol Hill.

Frustration with Trump is growing among congressional Republicans, who say a string of poorly timed announcements from the White House has repeatedly upended their legislative plans, sparked intraparty battles, delayed major bills, and contributed to the first-ever lapse of a key national security authority.

Last month, the administration’s rollout of a proposed $1.776 anti-weaponization fund drew swift condemnation from Democrats and some Republicans, forcing GOP leaders to delay passage of their reconciliation bill until acting Attorney General Todd Blanche vowed that the compensation fund was dead.

Because of the timing of the initial announcement — just days before a reconciliation vote-a-rama — Democrats were able to force tough votes in the Senate and open up vulnerable Republicans to new attacks on the reconciliation bill, largely overshadowing the money GOP lawmakers had supplied for immigration enforcement.

Earlier this month, Trump’s decision to install Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence triggered bipartisan backlash and helped sink an extension of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, producing the first expiration in the authority’s nearly 18-year history.

Lawmakers are still in a standoff over an extension.

And Trump’s last-minute endorsement of Ken Paxton in the Texas Senate race — over incumbent Sen. John Cornyn — deepened intraparty tensions and angered some Republicans who had already backed Cornyn.

Privately, many Republicans say the White House has repeatedly undercut them at pivotal moments.

“The most common thought of most Republicans I’ve talked to is he doesn’t give a shit about the legislative branch and he pays no attention to anything going on that we’re doing because all of the actions he has taken has done nothing but been unhelpful to us putting stuff on his desk or keeping a lot of our government agencies open,” one House Republican told MS NOW, requesting anonymity to discuss the internal sentiments.

“Everything is timed so perfectly that it’s like they sit around in the White House and think to themselves when is the worst possible time to do this — and then they do it,” this Republican added.

Another House Republican had similar thoughts, saying Trump’s greatest strength is “unwavering determination and confidence,” but that his greatest weakness is “when he plows ahead without recognition Congress has a role in Republican form of government.”

The lawmaker said passage of the GOP’s reconciliation bill last year, which required close coordination between both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, was “the model.”

“Not random decisions and endorsements pissing folks off,” this GOP lawmaker said.

A third House Republican was more succinct: “It’s pretty self-evident, right? You don’t need to speculate — these decisions are impacting legislative progress here.”

But these curveballs aren’t just hampering the GOP’s agenda and leading to private gripes. Some Republicans openly acknowledge that Trump’s timing is making their lives harder.

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., was clear with MS NOW that “the president’s the president.” 

“He can announce his initiatives whenever he wants,” Kennedy said. But he was also clear that some of those announcements have had consequences on Capitol Hill.

“Did the recent initiatives that he’s announced with respect to Mr. Pulte, the anti-weaponization fund — did that impact the votes?” Kennedy asked.

He answered his own question: “Yes.”

The lack of coordination — and the resulting irritation — has spilled into public view in recent weeks.

Last month, when the Department of Justice first announced the anti-weaponization fund, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters that “it would’ve been nice” if the White House had “consulted” with lawmakers.

“I think they probably would’ve gotten plenty of advice from lots of folks about it,” Thune said.

On FISA, Trump’s timing has been bad in two respects: First with the Pulte appointment, and then with his nomination of Jay Clayton to serve as director of national intelligence.

The Pulte appointment greatly complicated a FISA extension, with Democrats saying they won’t support a deal until Trump pulls Pulte from the acting position. But Republicans were also peeved that Trump waited to announce his intention to nominate Clayton until after the House had already left town for a week-long recess and as senators were rushing out the door.

Had the announcement come a little sooner, they said, there’s a chance Democrats would’ve dropped their blockade against the surveillance authority and Congress could have prevented the lapse.

“If Clayton had come even 24 hours sooner, the week may have ended differently than it did,” a senior Senate GOP aide told MS NOW.

Some Republicans say it comes down to better coordination between Congress and the White House.

“I just wish there was a little more talking to people so you get feedback,” retiring Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb, said. “I’ve learned as a commander it’s good to get feedback and hear what the downside to something is, because maybe it’s something you haven’t thought of.”

He tied the ill-timed announcements to November’s midterm elections.

“I just wish he’d be a little thoughtful, because if he wants a Democrat House, he’s got to be more thoughtful,” Bacon said. “It does hurt.”

Republicans, however, aren’t holding their breath that the president will adjust course. Trump arrived in Washington as a disrupter, many lawmakers note, and he has proven to be an unpredictable leader during his years in the White House.

“It’s the status quo,” another House Republican said. “It’s going to happen, and then it’s going to be corrected, and then it limps through, and then we move on to the next one.”

Whether the poorly timed play calls are intentional or not depends on who you ask.

As the Senate neared hour 15 of its most recent vote-a-rama — around 1 a.m. — Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said she doesn’t think Trump considers Congress when he makes announcements, a dynamic that makes everyone’s life harder.

“I don’t think he thinks about the impact on us, and the timing,” she said of Trump. “I just don’t think he thinks about it.”

And when pressed on whether he considers what lawmakers do on a day-to-day basis, Murkowski said, “I don’t think he’s connecting that, which is unfortunate, because it really has had impact.”

But not everyone agrees that it’s a matter of carelessness.

One of the previously quoted House Republicans hypothesized that Trump’s actions are intentional.

“I don’t think he’s dumb,” this GOP lawmaker said. “I think he does a lot of this stuff on purpose, and I think he’s trying to undermine our institutions, and it’s setting some really bad precedents.”

“We all know the president talks to one group of people, and it’s his base,” the lawmaker added. “He doesn’t care about anyone else. And when he talks to them, I think a lot of the actions he’s taken is to try to undermine both the legislative branch and the judicial branch and strengthen his position of executive branch and the importance of him sticking around.”

Of course, there have been other examples of Trump throwing Republicans for a loop.

Last month, Republicans grappled with a $220 million provision in their reconciliation bill for security at the controversial East Wing ballroom. Some Republicans have tried to distance themselves from the East Wing demolition and Trump’s unauthorized construction project. But the administration sought to slip the money in both to fund the project and to have it serve as a de facto congressional authorization.

Eventually, the money became so controversial that Republicans had to drop it from the reconciliation bill.

Trump’s capricious endorsements have also presented problems and drawn a recent wedge. 

The Paxton-over-Cornyn endorsement privately struck many Republicans as unnecessary, and it stung particularly because it came just days after Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., lost his reelection to another Trump-backed challenger.

The senior Senate GOP aide said the sequence of events made for a “tough” week.

“Coming off of Cassidy, the Paxton endorsement, the weaponization fund, and then the inability to move on reconciliation because of the weaponization fund — it was like a perfect storm,” this aide said.

Not all Republicans, however, are lamenting the lack of coordination. Cassidy said that while Trump’s announcements were “terrible timing” and “obviously complicates” legislating, he sees the glass half full.

“We should consider ourselves blessed that there was no coordination,” Cassidy told MS NOW. “It highlighted what a poor appointment that was and what a poor settlement that was.”

The post Trump has a timing problem — and GOP lawmakers are sick of it appeared first on MS NOW.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, was hospitalized on Sunday, according to his spokesperson, who provided no details on the former Senate majority leader’s condition. 

“Senator McConnell was admitted to the hospital this morning. He is receiving excellent care,” the senator’s spokesman David Popp wrote in a statement. He did not say why his boss was taken to the hospital.

McConnell, 84, has suffered a series of health problems and falls in recent years, including a series of episodes in 2023 in which he appeared to freeze on camera while speaking to reporters. 

He suffered a concussion and was hospitalized after falling at a Washington hotel in 2023, and fell in the Capitol multiple times after that. In February of this year, the former majority leader was hospitalized with flu-like symptoms.

First elected to the Senate in 1984, McConnell stepped aside in January as majority leader after serving 18 years as his party’s leader in the upper chamber.

McConnell, who is retiring when his term ends in January, has become a more vocal critic of President Donald Trump, whom he famously said was “practically and morally responsible for provoking the events” at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. 

More recently, the Kentucky Republican has criticized a number of Trump plans, including the president’s proposed $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund, which the administration had to abandon in the face of fierce bipartisan opposition. Calling it a “slush fund,” McConnell ripped the payout fund as “utterly stupid, morally wrong.”

The post Sen. Mitch McConnell hospitalized, his office says appeared first on MS NOW.

For the first time in its nearly 18-year history, a key U.S. surveillance authority is headed for a lapse in authorization, after Democrats refused to back an extension unless President Donald Trump abandoned his plan to install Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence.

Both the House and Senate rejected a three-week extension of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on Thursday, with lawmakers leaving Washington after the failed votes and all but ensuring the authority will expire at midnight Friday.

The unsuccessful votes marked the culmination of a remarkable standoff in which Democrats drew a hard line against extending one of the government’s most important intelligence tools unless Trump reversed course on Pulte.

For days, Democrats have raised concerns with Pulte’s appointment, citing his lack of intelligence experience, pointing to the mortgage fraud referrals he brought against the president’s opponents, and openly worrying that he may use sensitive intelligence for political purposes.

The depth of that opposition became clear Thursday when top Democrats brushed aside Trump’s decision to nominate Jay Clayton — the current U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York — to serve as director of national intelligence.

Despite that apparent olive branch from the White House, Democrats insisted they wouldn’t support a FISA extension unless Trump formally withdraws Pulte’s appointment.

“Pulte has got to go,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters shortly after the Clayton announcement. “The DNI role is too important. He cannot be there, no ifs ands or buts.”

Asked what he thought of Clayton, Schumer said it was irrelevant.

“Doesn’t matter what else they do,” he said. “Pulte’s got to be gone. He’s still in that role.”

Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, struck a similar tone. In a statement, Warner called Clayton “a capable public servant” but said until the Pulte matter is taken care of, he’ll withhold his vote for FISA.

“While I am glad to see the president finally come to his senses, before the Senate can take up a FISA extension there needs to be a clear guarantee that Mr. Pulte will not serve as acting DNI,” the Virginia Democrat wrote.

Part of the problem, Democrats argued, is that even with Clayton’s appointment, Pulte could still have time to misuse his perch as the director of national intelligence. Clayton would need to be confirmed by the Senate before assuming the position, which could take weeks — or longer.

Clayton is scheduled to appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee for a confirmation hearing on June 17 at 2 p.m. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters Thursday he expects to move through the process quickly.

Meanwhile, Pulte is set to assume the acting director of national intelligence job on June 19, according to Trump, which means that if Clayton isn’t confirmed in a speedy fashion, Pulte could spend some time at the helm of the intelligence community. It’s clearly a concern for Democrats.

“Trump’s choice of Jay Clayton for Director of National Intelligence does not resolve the President’s Pulte problem,” said Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who sat on the Intelligence Committee when he served in the House.

“Bill Pulte cannot be allowed to weaponize the intelligence community, misuse it for purposes of election interference, politicize the conclusion of analysts to suit the President’s false narratives, or rifle through the private data of the America people,” Schiff said.

In the interim, Democrats have raised a number of potential off-ramps, including having the current director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard — who many dislike — remain in the role, or giving the job to principal deputy director of national intelligence, Aaron Lukas, in the meantime.

Trump, for his part, is continuing to push for Pulte.

“He’s only there for a little while,” Trump said of Pulte. “He’s running it for a short while.”

The impasse is now poised to push Section 702 into its first-ever expiration, alarming national security hawks in both parties.

On Thursday, all but seven House Democrats voted against the three-week patch, leaving the vote at 198-218 — far short of the two-thirds threshold needed to pass the bill under the fast-track suspension of the rules process. 

Across the Capitol, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., objected to a unanimous consent request to extend FISA to July 2.

After the House vote, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., called the outcome “shameful.”

“It is detestable, it is dangerous, it is going to jeopardize the safety and security of the American people,” he said, pointing to the start of the World Cup in the U.S. and upcoming “America 250” events scheduled across the country.

“Those things are in jeopardy right now, because the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is exactly what the name implies, it is how we monitor terrorists who are plotting and planning dangerous events in the country, in our homeland,” Johnson added.

FISA section 702 allows the U.S. to spy on foreigners located outside the country, a key national security tool established in 2008 that advocates say has thwarted attacks in the past. According to the U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, information gathered through the program contributed to 63% of the articles included in the president’s daily brief.

If Congress blows past Friday’s deadline, the future of FISA is up for debate — in large part because an expiration is unprecedented.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court recertified FISA for a year in March. But without congressional authorization, some lawmakers and experts say the program enters a legal gray area — a fact that is fueling concerns about a lapse in the authority.

Some Democrats have argued the immediate consequences may be limited because existing investigations can continue.

“My understanding is that investigations can continue under the authority that has existed before now, and there need be no total shutdown,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said Thursday. “It’s a matter of authority, not funding, and ongoing investigations or imminent threats can be investigated.”

But the situation seems open to interpretation. Some lawmakers fear that the tech providers who turn over data to the government may not cooperate with warrants if the authority has expired.

When Warner was asked Thursday about what would happen, his response was: “We don’t know the answer to that.”

“It is obviously a high-risk proposition,” he said.

Kevin Frey contributed to this repor

The post Democrats sink key FISA extension as Bill Pulte standoff enters new phase appeared first on MS NOW.

After House Republicans initially showed opposition to President Donald Trump’s “anti-weaponization” fund, the House passed the GOP’s immigration enforcement reconciliation bill on Tuesday without any legislative restrictions on the proposed $1.776 billion pot of money. 

The bill — which funds Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol for three years — passed on a party-line 214-212 vote.

The outcome reflects both the political and procedural realities facing Republicans in Washington, as they navigate razor-thin majorities, unified control of government and the ever-present risk of Trump’s wrath.

Procedurally, House Republicans had virtually no opportunity to offer amendments restricting the fund, a consequence of the chamber’s leadership-driven process. In the Senate, meanwhile, the parliamentarian ruled that most fund-related amendments would require 60 votes — a threshold supporters just didn’t meet.

Ultimately, all but one Republican senator — Sen. Susan Collins of Maine — voted for the bill, a remarkable reversal for several lawmakers who had previously said they couldn’t support the package without language blocking the fund. The White House had also signaled that Trump could veto the legislation if it included restrictions on the program.

Politically, many Republicans concluded that sinking the party’s signature immigration bill wasn’t a tenable outcome, particularly given Trump’s recent penchant for retribution against Republican naysayers.

In the end, GOP lawmakers opted to fight another day.

“A lot of us would like to see the weaponization fund be killed and buried forever,” a moderate House Republican told MS NOW, requesting anonymity to discuss the internal sentiments.

But, this lawmaker added, “not funding border patrol and ICE is, I think, unhelpful.”

“Holding something hostage for something on weaponization, I think, would be difficult to achieve, especially since the Senate’s already passed it,” this Republican said.

A number of Republicans toyed with opposing the reconciliation bill. 

Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., caused some drama on the floor after he unexpectedly voted no. (After a lengthy discussion with House GOP leaders, he ultimately switched his vote.)

Of course, more moderate House Republicans could have withheld their support until GOP leaders added language prohibiting Trump’s compensation fund — as some Senate Republicans wanted. And about a dozen conservative Republicans initially held out on supporting a rule to set up debate of the bill on Tuesday, arguing that GOP leaders should add language from another hardline immigration bill — H.R. 2, a sweeping measure to install more restrictive asylum rules, require businesses to use the federal “E-verify” system for worker authorization, and remove certain protections unaccompanied children.

In the end, every Republican voted for the bill and every Democrat voted against it. The only lawmaker to technically cross party lines was Independent Rep. Kevin Kiley of California — who was a Republican up until March and usually sides with the GOP.

Not every Republican was thrilled with that outcome. 

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who’s retiring at the end of this year, unleashed on his GOP colleagues in a lengthy email on Tuesday, slamming them for voting down his amendment that would have blocked the fund.

The result, he argued, will come back to bite Republicans during the November midterm elections.

“I’m sure most of you would prefer to move forward, but I believe we will look back at this experience as yet another reason why we will have historic headwinds against us in November,” Tillis wrote in the email, which was obtained by MS NOW.

“We missed an opportunity to remove a political albatross (the 1776 Fund) from around the necks of our colleagues who are in cycle,” Tillis said. “Instead, we added weight to that albatross by having 41 members vote to protect the program.”

Tillis’ amendment overwhelmingly failed in a 15-84 vote, with just 12 Republicans and three Democrats voting in support. Hours later, Tillis voted for the reconciliation bill after clearly saying he’d be a “no” without language pushing back on the anti-weaponization fund.

With the immigration enforcement package now in the rearview mirror, some House Republicans are setting their sights on a new strategy to block the anti-weaponization fund: A standalone bill sponsored by Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., and Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., to prevent federal funds from being used to pay claims submitted to the fund.

The push for the bill comes after Trump over the weekend said he still thinks the weaponization fund is “a great idea.”

“And so do many other Republicans,” Trump said. 

“If they get it approved, that’s great,” he said in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “If they don’t get it approved, I’d be disappointed.”

The comments flew in the face of remarks made by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who told lawmakers last week that the administration is “not moving forward with the fund. Period.”

Blanche’s comments seemed to calm the nerves of some lawmakers and clear the way for passage of the reconciliation bill without any legislative restrictions.

Fitzpatrick and Suozzi are planning to file a discharge petition to force a vote on the measure this week, a source familiar with the matter told MS NOW, a posture that is already prompting consternation in the Republican ranks.

During a closed-door House GOP conference meeting on Tuesday, Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., urged members not to sign discharge petitions, according to a source in the room, as top lawmakers try to beat-back at a process that circumvents leadership’s wishes.

Fitzpatrick is firing back. 

In a post on X, he said discharge petitions wouldn’t be needed if the House floor “was managed properly.”

“A successful discharge petition is clear and direct evidence of a poorly managed House Floor—because it demonstrates that the will of the majority of the People is being thwarted by the privileged few,” he wrote. “Leadership of both parties have been guilty of this for years.”

He added that the rise of discharge petitions in this Congress was just “further evidence of the brokenness of the two-party system—and the rise of Independent voters is a direct manifestation of this.”

But the limits of that strategy are hard to ignore. As forcefully as Fitzpatrick opposed the anti-weaponization fund, he ultimately gave up his most powerful bargaining chip. By backing the reconciliation bill without restrictions on the program, he helped clear the path for legislation that is almost certain to become law, while pinning his hopes on a standalone measure that’s almost certain to never become law.

Passage of the ICE and border patrol bill puts a bookend on a months-long fight over the administration’s immigration crackdown. That battle began in January, following the deaths of Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis, which prompted Democrats to demand immigration reforms in exchange for additional funding and contributed to a shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security.

The dispute escalated in March, when Republicans agreed to separate ICE and Border Patrol funding from the broader DHS appropriations process.

But the disagreement reached its peak last month, when the administration blindsided many Republican lawmakers with the anti-weaponization fund — a proposal that exposed rare divisions within the GOP and continues to generate resistance even after Congress delivered Trump a major legislative victory.

The post House passes immigration reconciliation bill — without blocking Trump’s compensation fund appeared first on MS NOW.

Lesley Groff, Jeffrey Epstein’s longtime assistant, denied knowledge of her former boss’s crimes in her transcribed interview with the House Oversight Committee on Tuesday, the latest witness to testify in the panel’s sprawling Epstein investigation.

“I believe that my testimony will dispel the false notions that because of my employment with Epstein I must have knowingly enabled or conspired with him to commit his evil acts,” she said, according to a copy of her opening statement obtained by MS NOW. “Nothing could be further from the truth.”

Groff, who worked for Epstein for 18 years until he was arrested in 2019 on sex trafficking charges, told lawmakers in her opening statement that she never socialized with Epstein or his co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell. She described Epstein as “a master manipulator and deceiver who separated his legitimate life from his secret life as an abuser and made sure that as his secretary, those two worlds did not collide.”

Several Democrats on the committee have said that Groff’s testimony was not credible.

“Leslie Groff maintained today that she never once even had a suspicion that perhaps he was abusing women and girls; I find it unbelievable — absolutely unbelievable, not remotely credible,” Rep. James Walkinshaw, D-Va., told MS NOW’s “The Weeknight.”

Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., told reporters earlier Tuesday during a break in the interview that Groff’s characterization of their relationship was “highly inconsistent.”

“He was a registered sex offender, and she arranged young women for massages with a registered sex offender, and I just question whether … she can rightfully and truthfully maintain that she saw nothing improper in that,” he said.

According to her opening statement, Groff told lawmakers she made massage appointments for Epstein almost daily. She said she never met any of the masseuses, and none of them told her that they were minors or that they were being sexually abused. “Nothing I heard or saw led me to believe otherwise,” she said in her statement.

Groff also said she arranged phone calls between Epstein and Donald Trump, according to Lynch. Groff did not say what year that happened, but it was before Trump became president, Lynch said. (Trump has said he cut ties with Epstein in the 2000s, and he has not been charged or officially accused in court of crimes related to the Epstein files.)

Groff’s name appears more than 160,000 times in the Epstein files released by the Justice Department. She was one of the most present people in Epstein’s orbit, arranging his meetings with prominent figures and setting up massages for him with women.

Marina Lacerda, who was abused by Epstein as a minor, said at a news conference in September 2025 that Groff “would call me and tell me that I needed to be at the house so often that I ended up dropping out of high school before ninth grade.”

Notably, House Chaplain Margaret Grun Kibben was also in attendance for the first nearly 1.5 hours of Groff’s interview. The chaplain has not been seen at the committee’s previous hearings on Epstein.

When asked why she was there, Kibben told MS NOW: “Pastoral care is confidential.”

Groff does not face any criminal charges related to the late financier. Her attorney, Michael Bachner, previously said in a statement that “she had no criminal involvement with Epstein.”

“Lesley is simply disgusted by Epstein’s conduct and is heartbroken by what his victims endured,” Bachner said.

Groff is the latest Epstein witness to appear before the panel as part of its investigation into the late sex offender, with billionaire Bill Gates scheduled to testify before the committee on Wednesday. Like the other interviews, Groff’s will be transcribed and made public at a later date.

The post Longtime Epstein assistant denies knowledge of his crimes to House Oversight Committee appeared first on MS NOW.