My latest, on Republican views on Iran, the midterms and 2028.

Greetings from sunny Ocean Isle Beach, NC, where the Donovan clan is riding out Spring Break. Yesterday I took a break for a poolside chat with New York Times opinion editor John Guida, who was looking for an inside take on the mood among Republicans heading into November. Having been unplugged for the past six weeks, my perspective is less oriented by the online hive mind than it otherwise might be. And while I have been derelict in this space over the same period, the forgiving format of Q&A—the lazy man’s oped—was too good to pass up. What was published is a lightly trimmed version of our real-time conversation. (Sadly no OIB dateline.)
On what congressional Republicans actually think about the Iran war:
“The posture of the congressional G.O.P. reflects where their constituents are — instinctually wary of protracted involvement in the Middle East, uncertain as to exactly what our current objectives are in Iran and relieved by the cease-fire to the extent they are following closely. They’re eager to give this president the benefit of the doubt, and his willingness to speak out against previous misadventures gives him additional credibility in the near term even as it has confounded expectations.”
On the midterm environment:
“A great presidential cycle like the one Republicans had in 2024 is a double-edged sword. It’s fun to win elections, it’s exhilarating to control the levers of power, but there’s inevitably an electoral hangover… Heading into November, the G.O.P. has three things going for it — a constrained House map, forgiving Senate terrain, and an unpopular Democratic Party going through an identity crisis of its own. The wild card is time; seven months is a political eternity, especially in the Trump era.”
On 2028:
“In my mind the binary is order versus disorder. An orderly 2028, which I would expect at this point, is the conventional path where the vice president takes the mantle from a popular, term-limited president and romps to victory in a primary where would-be challengers read the writing on the wall and stay out. It’s not about JD Vance versus any particular candidate — if it’s not JD Vance, it’s a free-for-all.”

Read the full piece here.

I sat down with John Guida for a New York Times conversation on what congressional Republicans actually think about the war in Iran, why the party’s connection to Trump has reshaped how its members understand representation, and whether that connection is healthy for a political party.

John Guida: The war in Iran has not been popular among the American public (many Republicans excepted). Congressional Republicans gave the president a wide berth to conduct military operations. What is your sense of what these (and other) Republicans really think about the war?

Liam Donovan: The posture of the congressional G.O.P. reflects where their constituents are — instinctually wary of protracted involvement in the Middle East, uncertain as to exactly what our current objectives are in Iran and relieved by the cease-fire to the extent they are following closely. They’re eager to give this president the benefit of the doubt, and his willingness to speak out against previous misadventures gives him additional credibility in the near term even as it has confounded expectations.

Guida: So you think that the surveys showing a significant majority of Republicans are with the president on Iran is guiding most G.O.P. politicians in Washington?

Donovan: I don’t think congressional Republicans need to look at polls to tell them what they’ve lived through over the past decade: This president has a profound connection with his (and their) voters, and there has yet to be an example of public opposition to the president paying electoral dividends. In the Trump era, you’ve ended up with a model of representation who acts more like a delegate than a trustee — a proxy, not someone applying judgment.

Guida: Yet the Republican Party is, well, a political party. Do you think that “profound connection” to an individual is healthy for the full range of what a party should be?

Donovan: You have to remember that we got here precisely because the legacy G.O.P. was facially strong, winning enough elections for the establishment to maintain power, but rotting underneath in ways few could perceive.

Read the full conversation here.