Transcript: Reps. Josh Gottheimer and Mike Lawler on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,” May 24, 2026
Interview with Reps. Josh Gottheimer and Mike Lawler
Transcript – On May 24, 2026, representatives Josh Gottheimer and Mike Lawler appeared on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” to discuss their views on U.S. foreign policy, particularly the recent memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran. The discussion began with Nancy Cordes, the show’s moderator, addressing the bipartisan nature of their perspectives.
Cordes welcomed both lawmakers, emphasizing their shared goal of advancing national interests. “We’re joined today by a pair of representatives representing opposing political ideologies,” she noted, before introducing Gottheimer, a Democrat from Maine, and Lawler, a Republican from New York. “Congressmen, welcome. Thank you for joining us.” Both responded with gratitude, setting a tone of collaboration.
The conversation quickly turned to the U.S.-Iran agreement, which has sparked mixed reactions among lawmakers. Cordes asked Lawler for his assessment, focusing on the memorandum of understanding. “This deal seems to be gaining traction,” she said, “but some Republicans are already criticizing it. South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham remarked that if the deal holds, ‘one wonders why the war started to begin with.’ Do you agree with his skepticism?”
REP. LAWLER: I don’t share that view, and I believe it’s crucial to examine the full scope of the agreement before jumping to conclusions. The key issue is what the kinetic actions achieved. They targeted Iran’s ballistic missile program, drone technology, and naval infrastructure, while securing control of its airspace. These steps demonstrated a clear strategic objective. Iran retaliated by imposing a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, but President Trump countered that move, crippling Iran’s economic leverage and disrupting oil supplies to China. This pressure has led to negotiations, and the core goal remains preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon—something President Trump has consistently prioritized since the outset.
Lawler highlighted the significance of the agreement, particularly the administration’s role in forcing Iran into talks. “For the first time in 47 years, the U.S. has compelled Iran to negotiate,” he stated. “The previous agreement, the JCPOA, didn’t just prevent a nuclear weapon—it set Iran on a path toward one. Now, we’re aiming to reverse that trajectory. The administration’s approach has been decisive, and the details of this new deal will determine its success.”
Cordes then shifted her focus to Gottheimer, who has been advocating for a war powers resolution. “Congressman Gottheimer,” she asked, “you’re pushing for the resolution. If nuclear decisions are delayed but the Strait of Hormuz is reopened quickly, would that be a victory for American taxpayers?”
REP. GOTTHEIMER: That depends on the specifics, and as Mike mentioned, we’re still waiting for the full details. Reopening the strait is a positive sign—it could stabilize oil prices and benefit consumers. But the real question is whether the agreement aligns with our original objectives. The initial goal was to cripple Iran’s nuclear ambitions and reduce its ballistic and missile capabilities. While the strait’s reopening is a win, it doesn’t address the deeper issues. The Iranian regime has long been an adversary of the U.S., with clear ties to terrorism and proxy conflicts. Our strategy should not only focus on economic pressures but also on dismantling their nuclear infrastructure and limiting their military expansion. If we’ve only achieved a temporary fix without making lasting progress, then we’ve essentially stood still.”
Gottheimer stressed the importance of holding the administration accountable for its promises. “We’ve invested significant resources in targeting Iran’s capabilities,” he explained. “This includes not just their nuclear program but also their support for groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. These are all interconnected threats. If the final agreement doesn’t address them, we risk underestimating the long-term challenges. The president’s actions were bold, but the outcomes need to match the ambitions.”
Lawler, in response, reiterated the value of the current approach. “The deal is a step forward,” he said. “It’s a rare opportunity to engage with Iran on equal footing. The JCPOA allowed them to expand their nuclear program unchecked, but this new framework gives us more control. We’ve seen tangible results from the kinetic strikes—economic pressure, military deterrence, and a shift in Iran’s strategic posture. While the details are still unfolding, the agreement’s foundation is strong.”
Cordes summarized the debate, noting the contrasting priorities. “So, the challenge lies in balancing immediate economic relief with long-term security goals,” she remarked. “It’s a delicate negotiation between short-term gains and sustained progress. Both of you agree that transparency is key, but the question remains: does this deal deliver on the promise to neutralize Iran’s nuclear threat?”
Lawler emphasized the need for patience. “We’ve moved from confrontation to dialogue,” he said. “That’s a significant shift. The administration has taken a proactive stance, and the public needs to understand the terms before criticizing. The enriched uranium provisions are central, and they’re designed to limit Iran’s nuclear capacity. If we’re willing to trade some short-term benefits for long-term stability, then this is a win.”
Gottheimer countered with a call for urgency. “The clock is ticking,” he argued. “We’ve had enough time to act decisively. If the agreement doesn’t include binding measures to curb Iran’s nuclear program, then we’ve wasted an opportunity. The public deserves a clear plan, not just incremental steps. We need to ensure that the enriched uranium limits are enforceable and that Iran’s military expansion is addressed.”
As the interview concluded, Cordes reflected on the bipartisan dialogue. “This exchange highlights the complexity of the issue,” she noted. “Both representatives acknowledge the importance of the agreement but also its limitations. The path forward will depend on how well the deal addresses Iran’s nuclear threat while maintaining economic stability for the American people.”
Key Takeaways and Implications
The discussion underscored the tension between immediate economic relief and strategic objectives. While Lawler viewed the agreement as a necessary step toward dialogue, Gottheimer insisted on accountability for the regime’s nuclear ambitions. The memorandum’s success will hinge on its ability to balance these priorities and ensure Iran’s compliance with nuclear restrictions.
As the U.S. continues to navigate its relationship with Iran, the bipartisan approach of Gottheimer and Lawler offers a glimpse into the broader legislative debates shaping foreign policy. Their exchange serves as a microcosm of the challenges facing Congress in a rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape.
