Washington Weekly: Iran

The Senate confirmed Trump administration nominees and began debate on housing legislation (see below). It failed to pass an Iran war powers joint resolution (see below) and funding for the Department of Homeland Security. The House passed a bill to fund the Homeland Security Department (see below) and failed to pass its own Iran war powers resolution.

The Senate will confirm Trump administration nominees and continue debate on the affordable housing package and DHS funding. The House will be out of session. 

Iran.

Washington this week was preoccupied with the impact of and reactions to the US’s (and Israel’s) attacks on Iran last Saturday. While a major departure from President Trump’s criticisms of prior administrations’ “forever wars” in the Middle East, these actions reflect an increasingly aggressive foreign policy stance that has included last year’s bombing of nuclear facilities in Iran and the more recent interventionism in Venezuela. The attacks resulted in the death of Iran’s leader (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei), but they have not resulted in an overthrowing of the existing government, as President Trump urged the Iranian people to do. Iran has responded with attacks on military and economic targets aligned with the US throughout the region that raise concerns about the disruption of energy supplies and the potential for protracted conflict not only in Iran, but in the Middle East. President Trump and administration officials have provided varied and sometimes conflicting views on the rationales for the attacks (including preemptive action against Iran’s nuclear capabilities and regime change), on next steps, and on the nature, level, and timing of the US’s ongoing engagement.

Congressional Response.

The attacks prompted debate in Congress and votes on resolutions that would require Congressional authorization for further US military operations against Iran. The war powers resolutions failed in both the Senate and the House, mostly along party lines. Democrats criticized the operation as unlawful, arguing that the Trump administration failed to seek congressional authorization before initiating hostilities. Despite some unease, Republicans largely maintained a united front in support of President Trump. Nevertheless, concerns about the duration of the conflict and the potential deployment of US ground forces have exposed some divisions. Complicating matters, the Trump administration may shortly need more money to continue its campaign against the Iranian regime. Congress will have to approve it. To pass, it will need 60 votes in the Senate. Any vote for further funding will be difficult given razor-thin margins of Republican control in the House and Senate. 

Public Skepticism.

Early polling suggests President Trump’s decision to launch US strikes against Iran is not resonating with the American public. More voters disapprove than approve of the military action just days into the conflict. Multiple surveys show that Americans remain unconvinced by the administration’s shifting rationales for the attacks, reflecting broader unease about escalation in the Middle East and the prospect of another prolonged engagement. The data also underscore the limits of the traditional “rally‑around‑the‑flag” effect. In a highly polarized political environment, this effect has been muted in recent conflicts. With US casualties already reported and the administration signaling that operations will continue, the polling points to a potential political vulnerability for the White House. The Trump administration is on thin ice with the public, and it wouldn’t take much for the entanglement to become a drag upon the entire party.

DHS Shutdown Drags On.

This was the third week of no funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Negotiations between the White House and Senate Democrats on immigration enforcement practices have continued, though little progress has been made. Democrats continue to push for guardrails on immigration enforcement while Republicans favor an extension of current funding. Republicans also this week argued that the DHS is needed to address domestic security threats amidst the conflict with Iran. The Senate and House each held votes on a DHS funding bill that would keep funding levels the same as the previous year. Both votes were mainly along party lines with the House narrowly passing the measure again, and the Senate failing to clear the 60 votes needed. One plot twist was President Trump’s firing of Kristi Noem as Homeland Security Secretary after months of controversy. He announced Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) as his pick to succeed her. There will be pressure to find a compromise as the public begins to feel the impact of the partial shutdown, especially as an average of 2.8 million Americans will fly per day during March and April for spring break.

Tariff Refund Uncertainty.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision invalidating the Trump administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to implement reciprocal tariffs did not address the extent to which importers are entitled to refunds and the process under which refunds are determined. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has authority for collecting tariffs, including IIEPA tariffs, which some estimates put at over $170 billion collected. Following the court decision, CBP stopped collecting IEEPA tariffs, but, to date, it has not issued guidance about an administrative process on refunds, which would be complex and cumbersome even under the best of circumstances. Many companies have filed lawsuits to seek refunds. A federal appeals court this week denied the Trump administration’s efforts to delay tariff refunds. Instead, it gave another federal court (called the Court of International Trade (CIT)) the difficult task of adjudicating on the process for refunds. It remains to be seen whether the result will be a streamlined administrative process. The process for tariff refunds remains uncertain and will be difficult and complex even when greater clarity is provided.

Housing Bill.

The Senate this week moved forward with consideration of a bipartisan package to promote the development of greater housing supply. The bill, called the ROAD to Housing Act, was negotiated by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott (R-SC), Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and the Trump administration. The Trump administration pushed for the addition of a provision to ban institutional investors (generally defined as entities that own and control more than 350 houses) from buying additional single-family homes. Many housing groups have voiced concerns about the provision and its potential impact on the development of homes to rent. While some Republicans have concerns about the provision as well, the bill is on a path to passage next week. The House earlier this year passed its own housing bill in an overwhelming 390 to 9 vote. Some House members are frustrated that the Senate bill does not include some of the provisions in its bill and are concerned about the addition of the institutional investor ban. It remains to be seen how much the ban may change in the Senate and whether the House will feel strongly enough to make its own modifications to the bill.

Cuba.

While the current focus is on Iran, the Trump administration also has been squeezing Cuba. Following the US’s capture of former Venezuela President Nicholas Maduro (a key backer of Cuba), President Trump signed an executive order declaring a national emergency with respect to Cuba. The order authorized tariffs on countries that supply oil to the island, effectively tightening economic pressure and deepening an already severe energy crisis. The order comes a year after the Trump administration reinstated Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism. President Trump has also floated the possibility of a “friendly takeover” of Cuba. Though it’s not clear exactly what that means, Secretary of State Marco Rubio (the son of Cuban immigrants) has been in talks with the Cuban government. The pressure on Cuba and its government will continue.

Wealth Tax.

With a wealth tax being contemplated in California, it didn’t take long for the introduction of federal legislation. Earlier this week, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) introduced a 5% wealth tax on assets that would apply to about 1,000 billionaires and would raise an estimated $4.4 trillion in revenue. This revenue would be used for various social spending initiatives, including a one-time $3,000 payment to individuals in households earning $150,000 or less, a cap on childcare costs, and minimum salaries for teachers. It’s a non-starter in a Republican Congress and there are questions about its constitutionality, but we are keeping an eye on the wealth tax proposal to see what kind of reception it gets from mainstream Democrats.

Daylight Saving Time.

This weekend most of us will spring forward an hour and enter daylight saving time. While we lose an hour of sleep, it raises the question among some lawmakers if there should be a change with respect to this practice of changing the clocks. There have been recent efforts both at the state and federal level to sunset the biannual changing of the clocks that we have all observed for nearly 60 years. There is an array of state-level bills that either call for permanent standard time or permanent saving time (15 states, with AZ and HI having already implemented permanent standard time). At the federal level, the Senate and House each have their respective versions of a bill, the Sunshine Protection Act, which seeks to make daylight saving time permanent nationwide. There was a push to pass the bill in the Senate last October via unanimous consent, but there were objections. In 2022, the Senate passed legislation by unanimous consent to make daylight saving time permanent, but it died in the House. A bill introduced in the House last month seeks to take the middle ground and would instead make a permanent 30-minute shift forward from standard time. While rumblings of legislative attempts to make changes to the time change will continue, don’t expect any federal legislation to pass this year.

Off to the Races.

The first primaries of the 2026 cycle reinforced a familiar theme: Republican politics continues to orbit around President Trump, but establishment candidates are not extinct. In Texas, every House Republican endorsed by Trump either won outright or advanced to a runoff, while non‑endorsed incumbents fared poorly. In the Texas Senate race, Senator John Cornyn outperformed expectations and emerged narrowly ahead of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, forcing a runoff. That performance, combined with the rumor that President Trump will endorse Cornyn in the runoff keeps the race in the Likely Republican column for now. In North Carolina, meanwhile, both parties largely cleared the field in their Senate primaries, offering fewer surprises but sharpening the general‑election contrast. Trump’s endorsement appears to still reign supreme in Republican primaries, but so far the party establishment has managed to avoid any major missteps that will hurt them in November.