A source told JI that Republican leadership and the administration may seek to sidestep INARA review, at least for the current 60-day agreement with Iran
Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) speaks to reporters as he arrives for a meeting with senior national security officials on the situation in Iran at the U.S. Capitol Building on June 26, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Some Republican senators said that the administration does not need to submit the recently signed 60-day memorandum of understanding with Iran to Congress for review and a potential vote under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, potentially sidestepping the first major opportunity for Congress to weigh in on the agreement.
Under INARA, the administration is required to promptly submit any deal with Iran relating to its nuclear program to Congress for review, with an opportunity for Congress to vote to reject the deal. But the administration may attempt to avoid that step, at least until a broader agreement is reached during the 60-day negotiating period — if one comes about.
A source familiar with the situation said Republican leadership is in discussions with the administration about what is included in the MOU — senior Republicans have said publicly they have not yet been informed — but they are collectively moving toward a view that the MOU is an agreement for further negotiations, not a deal on Iran’s nuclear program in itself, thereby sidestepping INARA for the time being.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Some senators offered a similar view on Monday evening.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) said that he’s “not aware of any precedent” for Congress to vote on an MOU.
“This is like a template for further negotiations,” Hawley said. “I don’t even know constitutionally if we have a role on that.”
Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) said that he does not believe that a congressional vote on the MOU is necessary. He also went further, emphasizing that even under INARA, there is no requirement for Congress to vote on any Iran agreement.
“People may have different points of view of whether or not we should or we shouldn’t, but there’s certainly nothing required,” Schmitt said.
Pressed on why lawmakers wouldn’t want an opportunity to vote on the deal, Schmitt responded, “on whether or not a president can cease conflict in that way?”
“I don’t think it’s necessary,” he continued. “I’m just stating the law. … I will say that I do think that there are certain people in this building that want to undermine this, there’s no doubt about that. … You have the camp that wants us to lose, and then you have a camp that wants a forever war. President Trump’s not in either one of those camps.”
Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) said that “if there’s a final” deal with Iran, he believes Congress should have the opportunity to review and vote on it, but that he does not believe that such a vote is necessary for the current MOU.
“When there’s a final agreement — if there’s a final agreement — just like the JCPOA Congress should be able to weigh in,” Kennedy said.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), who said he was involved in crafting INARA during the Obama administration, said that whether the MOU needs to be submitted is a question of what it includes.
“If the details are opening the ports, opening the straits and ceasefire, but let’s talk about the nuclear program — I don’t know that that would have to be submitted,” Kaine said. “If the details that we hear Friday include some nuclear elements, and maybe we’ll talk about some other ones down the road — well then it might have to come to us. You just have to see whether the deal that is announced Friday includes an agreement on any of the elements of [their nuclear program].”
He emphasized, however, that meeting the 60-vote threshold in the Senate to pass a joint resolution of disapproval under INARA to block a deal would be difficult given current political dynamics around the war.
Others, however, are more eager for congressional scrutiny and even Senate ratification of the deal as a treaty.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) said that he hopes the U.S. doesn’t “make the mistake Obama made [with the original nuclear deal]. We had an agreement that never really got ratified by Congress, didn’t have a lot of visibility, and I think that’s a mistake.”
Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) emphasized that any lasting agreement would need to be submitted to Congress.
“If it’s going to be long lasting, you’ve got to pass law, and that was what President Obama figured out: he could make an executive agreement, but the next president just turns it off,” Lankford said. “The president has the power to be able to negotiate foreign policy. He is the person who speaks for the country on foreign policy issues, but lasting agreements that last beyond that president have to be put in statute.”
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) also said that if the deal is strong, it should be submitted to Congress for ratification as a treaty. “The JCPOA was torn apart, taken apart, because it could not meet that standard,” Rounds said.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), asked if the Senate should vote on the MOU or only the subsequent negotiated agreement said, “It’s the law. Any nuclear deal with Iran has to be voted on. There is no way that we will not review a deal.”
Copyright © 2026 · All Rights Reserved · Jewish Insider
The politics and business news you need to stay up to date, delivered each morning in a must-read newsletter.
Please log in if you already have a subscription, or subscribe to access the latest updates.
Email me a link to sign in
I don’t have an account
Already a subscriber? Sign in
Become a premium subscriber
Some senators say Iran deal can skip Congress — for now – Jewish Insider
Leave a Comment
