Scalise on potential of troops in Iran: ‘We’re having a lot of conversations about what could happen next’
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-Louisiana, appears on ABC News’ “This Week” on March 29, 2026. (ABC News)
(WASHINGTON) — House Majority Leader Steve Scalise did not refute the possibility of American ground troops entering Iran when asked on Sunday, even as many in his party have voiced concerns about such a move.
“There are no boots on the ground today, but we’re having a lot of conversations about what could happen next,” Scalise told ABC News’ “This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl. “But I think most people, most civilized people, recognize a nuclear-armed Iran is not an option that any of us want.”
The war with Iran has now surpassed a month of fighting and some congressional Republicans — including Scalise’s Louisiana colleague Sen. John Kennedy — have said President Donald Trump would need to come to Congress to seek authorization for any ground troops in Iran. When asked by Karl if he agreed with that proposition, Scalise did not answer directly, but said that Trump had already done that.
“The president has already come to Congress,” Scalise said. “They’ve let all of the congressional leadership know in advance of the strikes, but they’ve also had briefings on Capitol Hill.”
He added, “I was at one of those classified briefings with Republicans and Democrats, and they took questions from everybody. There were a lot of questions from people on both sides.”
Trump never officially sought congressional authorization before the war with Iran began, but his administration alerted a select group of top lawmakers, known as the “Gang of Eight,” before the initial strikes. And while the president continues to call the operation a “war,” he has also said that he cannot call it a war because he did not seek authorization from Congress.
Scalise said that he would not answer whether there would be widespread support from Republicans for ground troops in Iran because it has not yet happened.
“We’re not at that point yet. Obviously you’re seeing troop movement and we’ve got a number of bases in that region, too, that have been there for a long time,” Scalise said. “So until that day comes, I’m not going to speculate, and you’re not going to see the president go negotiate this in public.”
In a separate interview on “This Week,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said Congress should not allocate any more money “for an illegal war of choice.”
“[This is] a war that is now making us less, not more safe and has already cost American lives, is costing billions of dollars every day, oil and gas prices are going up,” Van Hollen, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said. “So the president who said he was going to focus on bringing down prices and ending foreign wars has started foreign wars along with Prime Minister Netanyahu and prices are going through the roof. So no, we should not keep funding an illegal war of choice that’s making us less safe.”
Unlike Scalise, Van Hollen does not believe the administration’s briefings have been substantive enough.
“I have been to these briefings,” Van Hollen said. “What you learned in these briefings is exactly what you’re hearing outside the briefings, which is they don’t have any particular objective. It’s a constantly changing objective. And there’s no endgame whatsoever.”
U.S. Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) speaks to members of the media as the Trump Cabinet briefs members of Congress on Iran at the U.S. Capitol on March 3, 2026, in Washington, DC. Trump administration Cabinet officials will be briefing all lawmakers in the House and Senate on U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The spotlight is now on Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin as the Oklahoma lawmaker is poised to take over the Department of Homeland Security following Kristi Noem’s controversial tenure and firing Thursday.
Mullin, 48, has no law enforcement experience but has been a staunch supporter of President Donald Trump’s policies on immigration and law enforcement.
Mullin told ABC News’ Rachel Scott and other reporters shortly after the news broke that he was completely caught off guard when Trump called him about the announcement and hadn’t yet talked to his wife.
“I am super excited about this opportunity,” he said.
“My focus is to keep the homeland secure,” he added.
Mullin will need to be confirmed by the Senate.
He said he is ready to “try to earn everybody’s vote,” including those of Democrats.
“If they have real concerns I’m going to listen to it, I’m going to be practical,” he said.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Rep. Thomas Massie speaks alongside Rep. Ro Khanna during a news conference on the Epstein Files Transparency Act outside the U.S. Capitol, November 18, 2025 in Washington. Heather Diehl/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Minority Leader Chuck Schumer introduced legislation on Monday that would direct the Senate to initiate legal action to hold the Justice Department accountable for failing to release the complete files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein by Friday’s deadline, which was mandated by the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
Schumer’s announcement came after Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie announced on Sunday that they are pursuing “inherent contempt” charges against Attorney General Pam Bondi for not complying with the law to release the complete Epstein files.
If the effort passes, it could lead to Bondi’s arrest — though the pair is expected to introduce the resolution as “privileged” once the House returns in January, which would force a vote within two legislative days on the House floor, and it’s unclear if this effort would even be successful when it comes up for a vote.
“The law Congress passed is crystal clear: release the Epstein files in full so Americans can see the truth,” Schumer said in a statement. “Instead, the Trump Department of Justice dumped redactions and withheld the evidence — that breaks the law. Today, I am introducing a resolution to force the Senate to take legal action and compel this administration to comply.”
The DOJ faced a Friday deadline imposed by Congress and signed into law by the president to release a massive cache of records gathered during government investigations into the sex offender, who died in jail in 2019.
The Justice Department released thousands of files — ranging from investigative documents to grand jury testimony to snapshots taken by Epstein and his friends — but said it would fail to fully release all the files by the deadline. The law contains exceptions to protect victims and other circumstances, but critics say the DOJ is not following the letter and spirit of the law.
Schumer called the DOJ’s partial release on Friday a “blatant cover-up.”
“Pam Bondi and [Deputy Attorney General] Todd Blanche are shielding Donald Trump from accountability, and the Senate has a duty to act,” Schumer said.
Schumer is expected to force consideration of this bill on the Senate floor in January when the Senate returns from its holiday break. The bill would likely require unanimous consent to pass.
It is unclear if it would have that support, but the Senate unanimously passed the Epstein Transparency Act, which compelled the release of the Epstein documents.
On Sunday, Khanna and Massie, the co-authors of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, announced their intent to pursue inherent contempt proceedings.
The inherent contempt power permits Congress to rely on its own constitutional authority to detain and imprison a “contemnor” — someone held in contempt — until the individual complies with congressional demands like a subpoena or a monetary fine, according to the Congressional Research Service.
The power directs the Sergeant at Arms to arrest the individual who refuses to comply with a subpoena or fine, however, once the witness complies with the subpoena, they are released.
Notably, the resolution would not require passage in the Senate to be enforced.
“The quickest way, and I think most expeditious way, to get justice for these victims is to bring inherent contempt against Pam Bondi,” Massie said on “CBS News’ Face the Nation” on Sunday.
Khanna, who also appeared on the same program on Sunday, reiterated that inherent contempt is the right path at this point.
“We only need only need the House for inherent contempt, and we’re building a bipartisan coalition, and it would fine Pam Bondi for every day that she’s not releasing these documents. I’ll tell you why, I’ve talked to the survivors, why this is such a slap in the face,” Khanna said.
On NBC News’ “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Blanche said he wasn’t taking Massie and Khanna’s threats seriously because he said he believes they are in compliance with the law. Specifically regarding threats of legal action against the department, Blanche said, “Bring it on.”
A statement released Monday morning by attorneys representing a group of Epstein survivors said omissions in the files by either redactions or unreleased pages amounted to a failure.
“We are told that there are hundreds of thousands of pages of documents still unreleased,” the statement said.
This screen grab taken from a video posted on the X account of U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem shows a U.S. Coast Guard aircraft flying over a crude oil tanker, last docked in Venezuela, before apprehending it on Dec. 20, 2025. Handout/US Secretary of Homeland Security via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump last week announced a “complete blockade of all sanctioned oil tankers going into and out of Venezuela,” ratcheting up the pressure on Nicolás Maduro’s regime as 15,000 U.S. troops and 11 warships stand ready in nearby waters — and leaving questions over the scope of the apparent escalation.
A naval blockade is considered an act of war under international law. But Trump’s reference to “sanctioned” tankers indicated U.S. operations would continue as a law enforcement crackdown by the U.S. Coast Guard, which seized an oil tanker off the Venezuelan coast last week and another over the weekend.
A Coast Guard interdiction is not a military operation; it is a court-authorized enforcement of U.S. sanctions.
According to retired Marine Corps Col. Steve Ganyard, a former State Department official and an ABC News contributor, the president’s orders, announced on his social media platform, amount to a legal quarantine — and not a blockade — because the post references only legally sanctioned tankers.
But Trump also referred to the Venezuelan regime as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), which could implicate any oil tanker that enters Venezuelan waters.
It wasn’t clear how the administration could designate the government as terrorists — or whether Trump was making reference to Cartel de los Soles, which the administration designated as a terror organization and has said is headed by Maduro.
What impact could a quarantine or blockade have?
Trump’s post last week “leaves more questions than answers,” said Clayton Seigle, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “What exactly are we going to do? How are we going to do it?”
“None of that is really detailed,” he said.
Whether the escalated pressure will target sanctioned vessels — or all vessels — remains an open question, but both approaches would impact Maduro, Seigle said.
“If you cut off all oil exports, and the associated revenues — and that’s a big if –then I think in a matter of weeks, the regime in Caracas would face extreme pressure,” he said.
If the U.S. continues to target only sanctioned tankers, “then I think that it could be a more prolonged runway for the regime to try to work something out, find a compromise, or even plan a deliberate exit.”
The U.S. says it has killed more than 100 people in the 25 strikes it says it has carried out on alleged drug smuggling boats since September.
Experts have pointed to President John F. Kennedy’s quarantine of Cuba in 1962 as an analogue to Trump’s approach — with unknown possibilities inviting risk.
“What if a ship doesn’t stop? This was the debate in the Cuban Missile Crisis,” Seigle said. “It’s all fun and games if they pull over and let [themselves] get boarded.”
“What if they don’t? Are you opening fire? Are you sinking ships?”
The announced blockade, though, “looks like it’s a relatively low-risk military operation” designed “to prevent” such a “quagmire,” Seigle said.
“Because if it goes smoothly and they’re able to cut off a lot of Maduro’s oil revenue, then they have a reasonable chance of getting the political outcome that they want, which is Maduro fleeing.”
Yet Trump on Wednesday wouldn’t offer a comment when asked if he sought regime change in Venezuela. Instead, he repeated a claim he said was a premise for blocking tankers.
“You remember, they took all of our energy rights,” he said of Venezuela. “They took all of our oil from not that long ago, and we want it back. But they took it. They illegally took it.”
Trump did not specify which period of nationalizations undertaken by the Venezuelan governments aggrieved the U.S. in his view.
An international arbitration court in 2013 ordered Caracas to pay $8.7 billion to U.S. firm ConocoPhillips, penalizing Venezuela for expropriation of crude assets in 2007 which it found to be unlawful.
Operating in the shadows The U.S. has sanctioned hundreds of oil tankers around the world which it says are part of an illicit network often called the “shadow fleet.”
27 of those designated tankers are operating in Venezuelan waters, according to Seigle.
Venezuela, Russia, and Iran “share that sanctioned fleet,” he added, and Venezuela’s slice is the smallest of the three.
A full quarter of China’s oil imports are produced by those sanctioned countries, Seigle said, leaving the country with “an outsized concern.”
“This is going to raise eyebrows and maybe raise concerns in Beijing among strategic planners that are responsible for making sure that they have enough oil,” he said.
Sanctioned tankers represent less than a fifth of the oil exported from Venezuela, according to Seigle.
“But I think it can have outsized effects in a number of important areas, including whether and for how long Maduro can hold out in a leadership position in Caracas, and also with regard to Venezuela’s biggest oil customer, which is China.”
Why call Maduro’s regime terrorists?
|As a part of Trump’s lengthy post on social media, the president also said the “Venezuelan regime” was an FTO, which the State Department designated it as in November.
Trump and State officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have repeatedly said Maduro is a narco-terrorist and the head of a narco-terrorist organization, adding that Maduro is not the legitimate leader of Venezuela.
Trump is likely referring to the designation of the Cartel de los Soles when he points to the “Venezuelan Regime” in his post.
The State Department alleges in its designation that Maduro and other high-ranking officials head the Cartel de los Soles and have “corrupted Venezuela’s military, intelligence, legislature, and judiciary.”
Maduro’s government categorically denies the existence of the cartel.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said in November that the designation of Maduro as a terrorist gives the U.S. more military options in its anti-trafficking operation and public pressure campaign on the Venezuelan president.
The FTO designation “brings a whole bunch of new options to the United States,” Hegseth said. “It gives more tools to our department to give options to the president.”
Legal experts have told ABC that the designation does not in itself constitute an authorization of force. But administration officials have consistently pointed to these designations publicly when disclosing strikes on alleged drug traffickers.
Notably, while the Maduro regime has been targeted as a foreign terrorist organization, the country of Venezuela has not yet been placed on the official “State Sponsor of Terrorism” list.
Only Iran, North Korea, Syria and Cuba are currently listed as state sponsors of terrorism.
