Trump: Iran Deal 'Largely Negotiated,' Would Reopen Strait of Hormuz

Washington and Iran have "largely negotiated" a memorandum of understanding on a peace deal that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz, U.S. President Donald Trump said, as expectations rose that a turning point might be imminent in the three-month-old war.

Trump posted on social media that the emerging agreement would reopen the strait, the vital shipping passage whose closure has sparked a global energy crisis since the U.S. and Israel launched the war on Iran in February. He did not say what else would be included in an agreement.

"Final aspects and details of the Deal are currently being discussed, and will be announced shortly," Trump wrote on Truth Social on Saturday.

Various media in the U.S. and Iran said the ‌memorandum that could yield an agreement lays out a phased framework for ending months of fighting, reopening the waterway soon and lifting a U.S. blockade on Iran. Plans for Iran's stockpile of ​enriched uranium, which Washington has insisted it give up, would be negotiated within 30 to 60 days, the reports said.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, on a visit to India, said more news could come on Sunday and there was a possibility of good news on the strait within hours. A senior Iranian source told Reuters that if ⁠Iran's Supreme National Security Council approved the memorandum, it would be sent to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei for final approval.

But Iran's Tasnim news agency said differences remained over one or two clauses. ​Tasnim cited a source as saying there would be no final understanding if the U.S. continued to create obstacles.

IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM IN FOCUS

A deal cementing a fragile ceasefire would bring relief to markets but ⁠would not immediately quell a global energy crisis, which has driven up costs of fuel, fertilizer and food.

Even if the war ends now, full oil flows through the strait will not return before the first or second quarter of 2027, the head of the United Arab Emirates' state oil firm ADNOC said last week.

Axios reported late on Saturday that the U.S. and Iran were close to a deal, which it said would include no tolls on ships transiting the strait, while Iran would be able to ‌freely sell oil.

In exchange, the U.S. would lift its blockade on Iranian ports and waive some sanctions on Iranian oil, the U.S. news outlet said, citing a U.S. official.

The draft agreement also includes ​commitments from Iran never to ‌pursue nuclear weapons, Axios said.

Trump, while offering various war aims during the conflict, has repeatedly said the U.S. struck Iran to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Iran has long denied it is pursuing such weapons and says it has a right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes, although the purity it has ‌achieved far exceeds that needed for power generation.

Iran's Fars news agency said the draft also stipulates that the U.S. and its allies will not attack Iran or its allies, and in return Iran pledges not to launch preemptive attacks on them.

Prominent Israeli politician Benny Gantz said it would be a strategic mistake for Israel to accept a ceasefire in Lebanon, where it is fighting the Iranian-backed ⁠Hezbollah militia, as part of a deal with Iran.

He posted on X that Israel had ‌an obligation to protect residents near the border and should reject any ⁠such proposal by the U.S.

Sources have told Reuters the proposed framework would unfold in three stages: formally ending the war, resolving the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz and launching a 30-day window for negotiations on a broader agreement, which can be extended.

One of the Pakistani ⁠sources said that ⁠if the U.S. accepts the memorandum, further talks could take place after the Muslim Eid holiday ends on Friday.

Trump, whose approval ratings have been hit by the war's impact on U.S. energy prices, said on Friday he would not attend his son's wedding this weekend, citing Iran among ‌the reasons for staying in Washington.

Tasnim said any changes in navigation through the Strait of Hormuz were conditional on implementation of other commitments by the U.S. It also said some Iranian funds that have been frozen globally as part of sanctions must be released in the first phase of the deal.

'ISSUES STILL NEED TO BE DISCUSSED,' IRAN SAYS

Trump spoke on Saturday with leaders from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan, who ‌encouraged Trump to agree ​to the emerging framework, Axios reported.

 

A call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin ‌Netanyahu went "very well," Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said on Saturday that "the trend this week has been towards a reduction in disputes, but there are still issues that need to be discussed through mediators."

Baghaei said the issue of the U.S. blockade on Iran's shipping was important, but that its priority was ending the threat of new ​U.S. attacks and the conflict in Lebanon.

Iran's top negotiator Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf said Iran's armed forces had rebuilt their capabilities during the ceasefire and that, if the U.S. restarted the war, the consequences would be "more forceful and bitter" than at the start of the conflict.

 

Wait—What Is Happening With the SC Redistricting Bill?

You would not be blamed for feeling a bit of confusion/whiplash, if you are like me, and have been trying to follow the latest on the social media superhighway on Republicans in the South Carolina state Legislature battling to make changes to the state's congressional districts. Especially on a Memorial Day weekend.

To catch everyone up, my colleague at sister sister Townhall, Matt Vespa, conveniently wrote this on Friday:

South Carolina Republicans are playing a dangerous game. They know Donald Trump can ruin their day. They saw what his team did to the anti-redistricting Republicans in Indiana, right? Gov. Henry McMaster

 

called this special session to pass this new map. We have panican, procedural weenies trying to gum up the works. It doesn’t help that Shane Massey, the State Senate majority leader,

 

is against this push. 

...

Regardless, the State House approved it, the South Carolina State Senate Judiciary Committee authorized it, and now it’s up to the Senate to pass it. It failed a key motion vote today, where essentially their version of the 60-vote threshold, Rule 15b on cloture, was rejected by these traitors. 

Vespa noted that early voting in SC begins on May 26, so there's a ticking clock on getting this fixed.

Up In the air, then, on Saturday are questions for people looking in on X... like: Did they pass the bill? Did Republicans gain a district? What about that state Senate majority leader Massey, who seems hell-bent on gumming up the whole deal by opposing it? 

Justin Evans of political consulting firm Big Dog Strategies 

 

wrote in an X post on Saturday that he also was hearing "a lot of noise" about the redistricting moves. His clarifying explanation is article-length, readers, but it's straight-forward and worth the read, I think:

He wrote:

Because there’s a lot of noise about SC redistricting and what happened today, let me clarify.

Today’s vote was second reading, the consequential one, where the real fight happens. But it isn’t the finish line.

The bill still needs third reading. After the procedural time allotted for speeches, amendments, and debate (redistricting bills are treated differently under the rules), the Senate takes a final vote to give it third reading. As long as it stays unamended, it then goes straight to the Governor for signature. No trip back to the House.

Earliest the Governor could receive it is sometime Wednesday, assuming no procedural hiccups and assuming every senator who supports redistricting keeps showing up and voting, every single day.

That last part matters more than anything. Attendance is crucial. These votes are won and lost by who’s in the chamber. One empty seat, one amendment that forces it back across the building, and the timeline slips.

We are close. Keep it clean. Keep showing up.

Pass the bill.

Indeed, pass it! I read this post's contents as good news for Republicans, Certainly, things are in a better place than they were just a day ago.

The coming days will tell the tale, and we'll bring you updates as we learn of them. Hang tight, Palmetto State!

Update [6:15 AM Eastern, 5/24/26]: For anyone wondering, the bill is called H. 5683. You can read the text of H. 5683 here. 

Thank you to the 27 South Carolina Senate Republicans who stood strong today and advanced the redistricting bill to third reading — a major step toward getting this done for the people of South Carolina. 

Our voters deserve fair representation that reflects our conservative values and supports President @realDonaldTrump’s America First Agenda. Let’s finish the job and get this bill to Gov. @henrymcmaster’s desk.

And The Greenville News reports that Tuesday could be when this gets done:

"[T]he vote [on the second reading] passed 27-17. At Massey's request, the Senate will reconvene at 11 a.m. on Tuesday, May 26, the first day of early voting.

 

Biden's Profiles in Cowardice: No Endorsement, No Backbone

John F. Kennedy wrote his Pulitzer Prize–winning tome "Profiles in Courage" in 1956, wherein he discussed eight U.S. senators who took brave stands despite political risks. They believed it was the right thing to do.

If the book is ever updated, it's unlikely former President Joe Biden would be included. He recently told his former chief of staff, Ron Klain, that he has made his decision on endorsing a candidate in one of the most pivotal election battles in the nation — the gubernatorial race in the union’s most populous state, California.

His answer? Nobody.

This was our commander-in-chief barely 16 months ago, yet now he doesn’t have the — cough — guts to make a call. We could call his chapter "Profiles in the Lack of a Backbone."

I’m no fan of former California attorney general Xavier Becerra, who has seen a bump in the polls lately but also an increase in attacks from his rivals. If I were him, though, I’d be pretty ticked off about now:

As Xavier Becerra campaigns for California governor on his long record of government service, Democratic insiders have wondered if he will receive a late campaign endorsement from his last boss, former President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

The answer appears to be no.

Mr. Biden recently told Ron Klain, Mr. Biden’s former chief of staff, that he would not make an endorsement in the race, Mr. Klain said. But that is not meant as a slight against Mr. Becerra.

“He told me that he is a big fan of Xavier, he likes Xavier, appreciates the job he did, but that there are other people in the race who he also has a relationship with,” Mr. Klain said in an interview this week. “He’s just going to stay neutral.”

It seems kind of like the old line, "I love you so much that I think I should continue to see other women — I don't want to limit you."

But on second thought, maybe Becerra will secretly be pleased:

---

READ MORE: Totally on Brand: Fake Politicians Steyer and Becerra Use Fake Social Media Accounts to Boost Campaigns

Xavier Becerra Praised Scientology on Video—Then Used Government Power Against Catholic Groups

---

Many polls have Becerra running close with zany Dem billionaire and advocate of violence Tom Steyer, but for the first time in many years, there are actually two Republicans who have a chance: businessman and former Fox News host Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco.

Becerra has only risen to the top of the Democrat field because his competitors are all second-teamers: the toxic Katie Porter, the mild-mannered-but-uninteresting mayor of San Jose, Matt Mahan — who boasts about how his city is doing well on the homelessness and crime issues without mentioning that his city’s housing is among the most expensive in the world — Steyer, and a few other also-rans.

Like Biden, former VP Kamala Harris and current Gov. Gavin Newsom have also refused to show that they have an interest in who runs their state come January 2027. You could call this “letting the voters decide” or “declining to pick sides” — or you could call it what it is: weakness. They’re too scared to alienate anyone because they don’t actually have real convictions, so they just choose to stay silent.

 😂😂😂

Compare this to our current president, Donald Trump, who was also recently faced with a tough choice: Republican Sen. John Cornyn or Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for Senate. They both had pros and cons, and Trump could have endorsed either or stayed on the sidelines. But he took the more difficult road and settled on his pick: Paxton. Whether you agree with his call is not the point; it’s that he had the leadership to make it — not cower in his office and wait to see which way the winds blew.

Joe Biden stepped back into the political arena for one day and performed like he regularly did during his one disastrous term: he faceplanted. To paraphrase something my mom used to tell me, "If you don't have something useful to say, don't say anything at all."

 

Spencer Pratt Has an Unreal Fundraising Lead Over Woke LA Mayor Karen Bass

Spencer Pratt, the reality star-turned Los Angeles mayoral candidate who has made waves online for his criticism of crime and homelessness-friendly policies advanced by the city’s Democrat leadership, is currently boasting a massive fundraising lead over his competition.

The latest campaign finance filing from the L.A. mayoral race shows that Pratt has managed to raise over $2.7 million in contributions from April 19 to May 16. His massive spike in campaign funds gives him a nearly 10 times advantage over incumbent Mayor Karen Bass, who managed to pull in a measly $282,000 over the same period.

Pratt’s fundraising for this past month alone sets him nearly equal to Bass’ total fundraising since she began reporting in 2024. The funds aren’t just coming from high level donors either. Further reports show that Pratt has the largest share of unique contributors of any candidate in the field.

This ought to really SCARE Karen Bass.

Check out how many unique donors Spencer Pratt has.

It’s MORE than ANY OTHER LA mayoral candidate EVER has.

Go Spencer! pic.twitter.com/nJ63dL9LRG

— Mila Joy (@Milajoy) May 23, 2026

The strong fundraising month means that Pratt is currently leading the race with his cash on hand, boasting a further $1.4 million to burn as the first round of voting closes in. The closest candidates to Pratt are all more than $100,000 off of the mark, with Bass and tech entrepreneur Adam Miller both hovering at around $1.3 million.

Pratt’s huge haul positions him well for the election, which will be held on June 2.

 

20-30 Gunshots Reported Outside White House

[This piece has been updated with new information]

Between 20 and 30 gunshots were reported outside the White House moments ago. 

The U.S. Secret Service rushed reporters to the briefing room. 

The Secret Service said that a suspect approached a checkpoint near 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW and started firing at officers around 6 p.m. 

The Secret Service returned fire and shot the suspect, who died at a hospital. A bystander was also shot. 

 

No Secret Service members were injured. 

Preliminary statement regarding the shooting incident on 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue. pic.twitter.com/NOdFKmwVuU

— U.S. Secret Service Office of Communications (@SecretSvcSpox) May 24, 2026

Suspect confirmed dead after opening fire outside the White House, U.S. Secret Service says.

pic.twitter.com/NFgBDCYCzP

— NewsWire (@NewsWire_US) May 24, 2026

UPDATE: Two hit by gunfire outside White House — the suspect and a possible bystander — and taken to hospital. Suspect in critical condition, second person in serious condition. US Secret Service agents were apparently shot at and returned fire at 17th and Penn. No agents…

— Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) May 23, 2026

NEW statement from @SecretService

-Individual approached USSS checkpoint on 17th and Penn
-Individual removed a weapon from his bag and began firing at posted officers
-USSS returned fire and the suspect later died
-Bystander struck by gunfire
-President was inside WH pic.twitter.com/eK5dyU10Bm

— Julie Tsirkin (@news_jul) May 23, 2026

The news follows as President Donald Trump is reportedly trying to finalize a peace deal with Iran. 

Shots fired at the white house
I heard about 30 shots
Secret service rushed us into press briefing room @NewsNation @DCNewsNow pic.twitter.com/j0f0eJH3nF

— Chris Flanagan (@ChrisFlanaganTV) May 23, 2026

GUNSHOTS heard outside of the White House

Approximately 20-30

Secret service told those of us gathered on the north lawn to run inside the press briefing room

— Julie Tsirkin (@news_jul) May 23, 2026

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) May 23, 2026

Outside the press briefing doors right now…

USSS officers, gun drawn, told us to run inside

White House now on lockdown pic.twitter.com/CdgKkKoSZu

— Julie Tsirkin (@news_jul) May 23, 2026

🚨🇺🇸 BREAKING: Footage from the White House reportedly shows a single law enforcement officer walking down the driveway.

It may signal the immediate situation is contained, though nothing official has been confirmed.

Still developing. https://t.co/DE0LtGQ2mJ pic.twitter.com/87o3ejkPI9

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) May 23, 2026

Many gunshots were heard when we were at the White House. We were told to run into the press briefing room

— Selina Wang (@selinawangtv) May 23, 2026

🚨 BREAKING: GUNSHOTS HEARD OUTSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE — NBC and ABC report

Reportedly dozens, "20 to 30"

Comes as 47 zeroes in on an Iran deal.

PRAY FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP, pray for Secret Service 🙏🏻pic.twitter.com/LVV7Mt8D44

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) May 23, 2026

Gunshots heard outside the White House, per my colleagues there now. All press moved into briefing room. Per colleague “It was a lot of gunshots. We are all safe inside.”

— Kellie Meyer (@KellieMeyerNews) May 23, 2026

🚨🇺🇸 BREAKING: Gunshots were reportedly heard outside the White House, per NBC News, with approximately 20 to 30 rounds fired.

The Secret Service ordered members of the press gathered on the North Lawn to run inside the briefing room.

Details are still emerging and nothing has… pic.twitter.com/3AQFoO3teB

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) May 23, 2026

Just did a hit with OAN's @AlexIngersoll when we were abruptly cut off live on air in what appears to have sounded like gunshots right outside the White House.

— Dana Alexa (@DanaAlexaNews) May 23, 2026

 

Women's museum bill collapses after Dems revolt over ‘biological women’ language

 

Bipartisan lawmakers voted against legislation that would have advanced the construction of a new women’s history museum in Washington, D.C., amid disagreements over “identity politics,” with House Democrats criticizing the proposed exclusion of transgender individuals from the museum.

Democrats overwhelmingly opposed the legislation over a GOP provision stipulating that only biological women would be recognized by the museum.

The measure failed in a 204–216 vote after a small group of Republicans joined Democrats in opposing the legislation, which would have secured a site on the National Mall for the future Smithsonian American Women’s History Museum.

The bill would have authorized the use of federal land on the National Mall for the construction of the American Women’s History Museum, as the Smithsonian cannot begin building until the site is formally transferred for the project. The museum was planned for a location across from the National Museum of African American History and Culture on the Mall.

 

Representative Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.) rejected Democrats’ criticism of the bill, saying America has “more than enough women to display in this museum that we shouldn’t be fighting over the need to have non-biological individuals in there.”

“So, I don’t understand why we’re pulling bipartisan support from legislation to establish this museum,” Malliotakis added. “As a matter of fact, let me read, so everybody at home knows exactly what this debate is over. It is over one sentence. ‘The museum shall be dedicated to preserving, researching and presenting the history, achievements and lives experienced by biological women in the United States.’ That’s what the disagreement is about.” 

She continued, “I hate to alert my friends on the other side of the aisle, but a museum dedicated to women’s history should have women in it. That’s it. That’s simple.”

The museum bill prohibits the depiction of “any biological male as female,” which formalizes language in an executive order (EO) issued by President Donald Trump in 2025, barring the inclusion of transgender individuals in the forthcoming museum.

“The Museum shall be dedicated to preserving, researching, and presenting the history, achievements and lived experiences of biological women in the United States,” the amended measure, authored by Representative Mary Miller (R-Ill.), stated.

“The addition of the word biological made them all run for the hills,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said during a news conference Wednesday. “If that’s controversial in the Democratic Party, we’re in serious trouble. The party that purports to support women demanding that the museum include biological men.”

 

Today is the day! Will my bill that the President is ready to sign to build a women’s history museum pass or will Democrats sink it to insist on transgender exhibits? pic.twitter.com/SynEnY50kt

— Nicole Malliotakis (@NMalliotakis) May 21, 2026

 

Supreme Court Summer Showdown: Trump, Birthright, Agencies, Sports

 The Supreme Court is sprinting toward its summer break with a load of blockbuster decisions still unread. More than two dozen major opinions — some trackers say roughly three dozen — sit in the decision queue. For conservatives who worry about the administrative state, the meaning of the 14th Amendment, and the future of women’s sports, these next rulings will matter for years. And yes, President Trump’s presence on the docket makes this term feel less like routine law and more like a constitutional season finale.

Big rulings before the Court’s summer recess

This is the moment when a handful of justices must decide whether the high court will rein in an overgrown federal bureaucracy or hand it new powers. The cases that grab headlines do more than settle disputes — they will define who actually runs the executive branch, who is a citizen by birth, and whether girls and women get protected space to compete. President Trump is a named party in several of the highest-profile matters, including the birthright‑citizenship fight. His attendance at oral argument was an unusual sign of how political and consequential this term has become.

 

Birthright citizenship: Trump v. Barbara and the 14th Amendment

The Court will finally weigh whether the old reading of the Citizenship Clause is beyond debate. Trump v. Barbara asks if an executive order can narrow who automatically becomes an American at birth. For decades courts treated the 14th Amendment as granting citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil. But attorneys urging a narrower reading point to the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and say that merits a fresh look. If the justices stick to the plain text and original meaning, they can restore clarity to immigration law instead of leaving it to bureaucratic interpretation or political fashion.

Presidential removal power and the administrative state

Two other cases test whether the president can fire officials on independent boards without showing cause. The Humphrey’s Executor line has long protected multi‑member agencies like the FTC from at‑will removal. If the Court weakens that precedent, the president will regain stronger power to hold unelected regulators accountable — and that would be a win for democratic control. If the Court doubles down on lifetime-style insulation for agency members, expect more rulemakings set by officials who answer to no one. Conservatives should want transparency and accountability, not a permanent administrative caste.

Transgender athletes and Title IX

Another big fight is over fairness in girls’ and women’s sports. State bans on biological males competing in female school athletics are before the Court, and lower courts are split. The issue comes down to Title IX and equal protection — whether protecting female athletes’ opportunities is still a recognized policy interest. The justices signaled during arguments that they understand the stakes for female competition. A ruling upholding the bans would be a practical, commonsense defense of women’s sports; a different result would reshape Title IX in ways many parents won’t like.

We’ll know soon. The Court traditionally clears its docket by the end of June or early July, and this term’s remaining opinions will decide more than courtroom theory — they will shape how we are governed. Conservatives should watch closely and push for rulings that respect the Constitution’s text, the people’s democratic power, and basic fairness in sport. The drama isn’t over; the written opinions will tell us which way the court really leaned when the cameras were off.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani, Governor Kathy Hochul Back Free 2‑K No Checks

Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Governor Kathy Hochul just rolled out the latest chapter in New York’s race to build a government‑run cradle‑to‑college pipeline. At a May 19 press event, the city announced it has extended 99,921 offers for 3‑K and pre‑K seats, added 2,000 new 3‑K slots, and is moving ahead with a plan to offer free 2‑K seats for two‑year‑olds in initial communities. Officials also made clear these programs are open to families regardless of immigration status. That is the development New Yorkers should be parsing — and worrying about — right now.

What Mamdani and Hochul Actually Announced

The headlines are simple: nearly 100,000 offers for 3‑K and pre‑K, 2,000 extra 3‑K seats, and the launch of a “2‑K” program for two‑year‑olds in selected neighborhoods. The city says 70 percent of families got one of their top choices and 85 percent received one of their top three, and officials boasted the average travel distance to centers fell by roughly six blocks. The state budget backing this effort includes bigger child‑care spending — officials flagged an extra $1.7 billion at the state level and the city points to a separate $1.2 billion investment. That’s real money. So are the consequences.

Taxpayers, Immigrants, and the “No‑Status Check” Approach

Here’s where the announcement got political: the city will not check children’s immigration status when enrolling them in these free programs. The administration calls all children “New Yorkers,” and says programs are open regardless of where a child or family was born. Conservatives have every right to raise an eyebrow. When you combine universal free childcare with a blanket non‑verification policy, you’re asking taxpayers to underwrite care for anyone who shows up. That’s a policy choice. It should be debated honestly, not buried under virtue signaling.

Quality, Costs, and the Question of Responsibility

Beyond politics, there are practical questions. Two‑year‑olds in full‑day, full‑year programs (the city’s model lists roughly 8 a.m.–6 p.m., 260 days a year) require specially trained staff, safe facilities, and consistent oversight. Recruiting and retaining those workers will cost money and will not be solved by glossy announcements. And when a city turns parenting into a municipal program, you have to ask: who’s responsible for raising children — families or local government? If taxpayers are shouldering almost $3 billion between state and city investments, New Yorkers deserve answers about staffing, quality standards, and long‑term costs, not just promises and celebrity endorsements.

Mayor Mamdani and Governor Hochul have made a big bet on expanding public child care. Conservatives should push back on the costs, the operational challenges, and the decision to make eligibility universal without status checks. If New York wants to help families, fine — but let it be with transparency, targeted aid, and accountability. Otherwise this grand experiment will be less about helping kids and more about creating another permanent line in the municipal budget that voters will pay for, one tantrum at a time.

 

CartoonDems

 

Wicker Urges Trump to 'Finish What We Started' in Iran as GOP Hawks Weigh In

Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., 

 

is urging President Donald Trump to escalate U.S. military action against Iran, joining a growing bloc of Republican hawks pressing the White House to move beyond diplomacy and intensify pressure on Tehran.

The push from Wicker comes as Trump met Friday with senior national security advisers at the White House to review options on Iran, including whether to resume military operations amid stalled talks over a potential diplomatic framework, according to reports. The session included Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

 

 and other top officials, underscoring how central the Iran file has become inside the administration as negotiations falter.

The New York Post reported Thursday that Wicker, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called on Trump to “finish what we started” in Iran as negotiations remain stalled over uranium enrichment, sanctions relief and broader limits on Tehran’s nuclear program.

 

Wicker’s comments place him among the most vocal Republicans arguing the administration should take a tougher approach following recent U.S. and Israeli military action tied to Iran and amid deepening skepticism among conservatives that diplomacy can permanently halt Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., 

 

has similarly argued in recent weeks that Iran’s nuclear infrastructure should be dismantled entirely rather than constrained through a negotiated agreement.

Cotton joined Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Katie Britt, R-Ala., 

 

in introducing a resolution declaring that any acceptable nuclear deal must require Iran to “completely dismantle and destroy” its nuclear enrichment capabilities.

Cotton has also defended recent U.S. and Israeli military operations involving Iran, arguing Tehran’s nuclear program and regional proxy network require a more forceful response than previous diplomatic efforts.

The Republican push for a harder line comes as divisions over Trump’s Iran strategy have widened on Capitol Hill.

The Senate earlier this week advanced a bipartisan war powers resolution aimed at limiting Trump’s ability to continue military operations against Iran without congressional approval, with several Republicans joining Democrats in backing the measure.

House Republicans abruptly scrapped a planned vote on a companion Iran war powers measure this week amid concerns it could unexpectedly pass with bipartisan support because of GOP absences and defections from Republicans uneasy with Trump’s military posture toward Tehran.

The canceled vote underscored growing tensions inside the Republican Party between foreign policy hawks pushing aggressive action against Iran and lawmakers warning Congress risks surrendering too much authority over war powers to the executive branch.

Trump has continued to publicly insist he prefers a negotiated settlement with Iran, though he has repeatedly warned the U.S. could launch further military strikes if Tehran refuses to sharply curb uranium enrichment and missile development.

© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.