Hello and welcome back to The Best & The Brightest. I’m Leigh Ann Caldwell, hitting your inbox on an evening that just freed up for a lot of people, since the House canceled a long series of votes that had been set to kick off after 9 p.m. tonight.

Speaker Mike Johnson and his leadership team are scrambling to find enough Republican votes to pass a procedural rule on an extension of FISA Section 702. Johnson needs nearly unanimous G.O.P. support to pass the rule with his slim majority, and rank-and-file members are predictably using their leverage to throw up roadblocks and make demands of the speaker. Conservatives want more privacy protections in the foreign surveillance bill. I hope more people use their time to make it to a workout class.

This morning, I sat down with Republican Sen. Todd Young for our latest Puck Power Breakfast, hosted by the Association of American Railroads, for a wide-ranging conversation touching on A.I., quantum computing, prediction markets, and an upcoming surface transportation bill. But the bulk of our conversation coalesced around Iran: Young, a member of the Intelligence committee, has not been in lockstep with President Trump’s decision to launch the war, but now believes the U.S. can’t abandon the campaign. Subscribe here, if you haven’t already, to read the full thing—it gets spicy.

Up top, I’ve got an update on some creative G.O.P. meddling in a congressional race in Omaha, a prime pickup opportunity for Democrats in a district that Republicans are desperate to hold on to. Plus, some news on LA28 chair Casey Wasserman’s hat-passing tour in Washington. As you’ll recall, Wasserman was recently micro-canceled, and forced to sell his eponymous management and representation firm, after his name surfaced in the Epstein files. (Here’s a great Puck piece by Matt Belloni for those in need of a refresher.)

Also mentioned in this issue: Rosa DeLauro, Tom Cole, Susan Collins, Patty Murray, John Cavanaugh, Tim Kaine, Denise Powell, Crystal Rhoades, Don Bacon, Brinker Harding, Chris Winkelman, and more…

A MESSAGE FROM INSTAGRAM

Instagram Teen Accounts: Automatic protections for teens

Instagram Teen Accounts have built-in protections for who can contact teens and the content they can see. Teen Accounts now have a stricter “Limited content” setting for parents who prefer extra controls.

Nearly 95% of parents say Instagram Teen Accounts help safeguard their teens. We will continue adding features to help protect teens online.

Learn more

Dark Money Moves

G.O.P. tries to saddle Dems with… Trump: Republicans are trying to sink the leading Democrat in Nebraska’s most competitive congressional race by tying him to… Donald Trump. The state’s 2nd congressional district is a top pickup opportunity for Democrats this cycle, given the retirement of five-term G.O.P. Rep. Don Bacon, and the party is embroiled in a competitive three-way primary there. But American Action Network, the dark-money group closely aligned with the Congressional Leadership Fund and Speaker Mike Johnson, has been targeting the current favorite, Democratic State Sen. John Cavanaugh, as a MAGA Trump ally—a potentially crippling association in a Democratic primary.

Playing in the opposing party’s primary is a controversial but increasingly common tactic that Democrats used to great success in 2018. Republicans also used it in this year’s Texas Senate primary to artificially boost Rep. Jasmine Crockett. It’s a risky use of limited resources (see Crockett’s results…) no matter how good the fundraising quarter, and can backfire if voters find out—as may now be the case in Omaha.

I got my hands on the mailers that AAN is sending to Democratic voters in the district. One reads, “Democrat John Cavanaugh and President Trump: Joining Together to Advance the MAGA Agenda,” alongside an image depicting the two in celebration. Another highlights “The Trump/Cavanaugh MAGA Tax Agenda,” while a third declares, “Same Tax Plan. Same Agenda. Democrat John Cavanaugh Brings President Trump’s Tax Agenda Home.” Cavanaugh, like many Democrats, supports “no tax on tips,” the Trump-backed policy that was included in the Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill.

Cavanaugh has been endorsed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC, the Sierra Club, and other progressive groups, and he’s led recent polling in the race against fellow Democrats Denise Powell and Crystal Rhoades heading into the May 12 primary. Granted, those were polls that Cavanaugh commissioned, but they’re the only ones publicly available, and Republicans clearly agree that he’s the strongest potential challenger to presumptive G.O.P. nominee Brinker Harding, who was endorsed by Trump yesterday.

In a statement, American Action Network president Chris Winkelman acknowledged the meddling. “Denise Powell and Crystal Rhoades oppose President Trump’s policies—an agenda that is good for Nebraska,” he said in a statement. “The American Action Network stands with the President and the results he’s delivering for Nebraskans.” Democrats, for their part, are increasingly confident they can flip the seat this year no matter which candidate wins the primary.

The Cloakroom

LA28 or bust: Casey Wasserman, the chair of the Los Angeles 2028 Olympics who recently agreed to sell his talent agency after his flirty emails with Ghislaine Maxwell surfaced in the Epstein files, is currently in Washington begging Congress for money for the Summer Games. President Trump has brushed off a requested $2 billion for public transportation for LA28, potentially leaving a massive hole in the budget just two years before millions of tourists descend on a city that’s not exactly easy to get around. Wasserman met with Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, and was also scheduled to meet with chairman Tom Cole, as well as Senate Approps chair Susan Collins and ranking member Patty Murray.

Now, on to Senator Young…

Young & The Restless

Straddling the fault line between old-school conservatism and Trump-era loyalty, Senator Todd Young joined Puck in D.C. to talk shop about Iran, his vote against a war powers resolution, and why, even if the war isn’t necessary, America can’t back down.

Leigh Ann Caldwell

Sen. Todd Young of Indiana is a bit of a contradiction—he’s a genteel old-school Republican in a MAGA-fied party, an Iran war skeptic who has repeatedly voted against attempts to rein in Trump’s “little excursion,” and a critic of congressional abdication who also opposes tying the president’s hands in the middle of a conflict. In a political arena populated by loudmouths, Young tends to abide by the adage that you shouldn’t say anything if you have nothing to say—which is largely why he stayed out of the Indiana redistricting fight the president led and lost in his state, and why he’s often guarded when speaking to the press.

So it was striking how candid and critical he was during our Puck Power Breakfast conversation this morning—including about his Republican colleagues and the Republican president. He declined to say whether he believed, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, that the U.S. faced an “imminent threat” from Iran. (“It depends who you ask,” he said.) Young also explained his planned vote against the war powers resolution, which he said would undermine American interests at this stage, despite his “great attraction to a yes vote.” (Earlier this year, he voted to advance a war powers resolution to end U.S. intervention in Venezuela, only to vote against it after being publicly shamed and privately castigated by Trump.)

A MESSAGE FROM INSTAGRAM

Instagram Teen Accounts: Automatic protections for teens

Nearly 95% of parents say Instagram Teen Accounts help safeguard their teens. We will continue adding features to help protect teens online.

Learn more

The two-term senator, free from the strains of reelection for another two years, did say that the Trump administration is falling short in informing Congress about the goals and objectives of the war. But he explained his position by way of an old Thomas Jefferson quote. “Maybe you shouldn’t have grabbed the tiger by the ears,” he said. “But now you have the tiger, and if you just let go, you need to think about the consequences.” The following conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

“This Is Devolving Very Quickly”

Leigh Ann Caldwell: Of course, we have to talk about Iran. You’re on the Intelligence Committee, and there’s a big vote coming up in the Senate today about a war powers resolution regarding Iran. How are you going to vote on this?

Todd Young: I’m going to vote no, for the same reason I’ve explained from these first war powers resolutions in Iran. [Ed. note: That vote happened this afternoon and was blocked by Republicans.] I’ve been very public in the lead-in to this whole effort. First, being careful to acknowledge that we’re dealing with a leading state sponsor of international terrorism—since 1979, they’ve been responsible for killing Americans in the Middle East and all sorts of terrorist activity. They continue to develop their nuclear program and ballistic missile capacity, which is increasingly of great concern—not just to the people in the region, but to the Europeans and, ultimately, the United States.

The president felt the need to deal with this threat. Process leads to better policy—that’s why we have a lot of established processes—and I have expressed unhappiness with the process publicly. That said, we’re in a war with a state sponsor of terror. And I think a responsible legislator thinks not only about the very important and debatable legal issue in play, but also about the operational aspect: What happens if you immediately pull troops out? What happens if you starve the troops in the field of resources? These contingencies have not been seriously dealt with. Instead, this is devolving very quickly into a partisan political exercise.

It’s fair to say as we approach 60 days, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution [of 1973], that the administration needs to bring clarity to how long they anticipate this conflict continuing and what we can expect moving forward. The president reiterated this week that he wants to bring this whole thing to a close. As we approach that date, I think there will be more serious conversation about the drafting of an AUMF [Authorization for Use of Military Force]. I will be among those holding their hands up with a pen in their hand.

“Depends Who You’re Asking”

So you’re open to voting for a war authorization, should this go beyond 60 days—but you’re not committed yet?

Correct. There were a lot of quizzical faces in the halls of the Capitol about why [Virginia Democratic Sen.] Tim Kaine and I, for a number of years, prioritized taking old AUMFs off the books—Iraq and Afghanistan. Think-tankers and smarties occupying law schools around the country have ruminated about the possibilities of one day using that Iraq War AUMF [from 2002] to justify a war against Iran. We took that off the table.

So there will come a time where we will have troops out of the field, and I think it will be a very important question about imminence and whether or not there was sufficient justification for us to stumble into this. But that’s retrospective, and my posture right now is not to be retrospective, because I think that would undermine the interests and the welfare of our troops and the American people.

You’ve spoken about your concern that Congress is giving up some of its authority, including its war powers authority. Isn’t a war powers resolution—or committing to a war powers resolution—a way to rein in some of that power from the executive?

Yes, it is, unquestionably—which is my great attraction to a yes vote. But unfortunately, it has the drawback of undermining our interests—in this case, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, as well as our security interests, which should include extracting [Iran’s highly enriched] uranium.

As a member of the Intelligence Committee, did you see any sort of imminent threat from Iran? Was there any sort of intelligence to show that this war was necessary at this moment?

Depends on who you’re asking.

I’m asking you.

It’s necessary for us to continue it now.

So maybe not start it, but to continue it?

You said maybe not start it—but yes. That’s what’s at stake right now. It’s such a peculiar situation. It’s the first time I’ve dealt with a situation like this. In an entirely different context, generations ago, Thomas Jefferson talked about grabbing a tiger by the ears. Maybe you shouldn’t have grabbed the tiger by the ears—but now you have the tiger, and if you just let go, you need to think about the consequences.

How effective has the administration been in trying to deal with the situation created by going to war with Iran? Do you think the ceasefire is going to continue for the next several days, as it was outlined, and potentially beyond?

I still think there are some occasional fires. I read a witty line the other day—that the only thing that has not ceased is firing. So, do I think this whole thing is going to hold? The Iranians have had some success with their horizontal escalation strategy, which should have been predicted. I think they’ll continue to maintain that leverage. So it’s hard to tell. But the president is our commander-in-chief. It’s his charge to come up with a strategy to get us out of this. I know he’s working hard toward that end, and I want to support him so that we can vitiate this terrorist regime.

What that means with any specificity is not entirely clear. So that’s why, as we approach this 60-day period, it’s important for many of us to continue to press for more clarity.

Along with the clarity come trade-offs. What sacrifices will be and should be required to carry out what I think is a very important mission? But we mustn’t balk. I don’t think my colleagues are very good at pressing for these answers or fessing up with their constituents about trade-offs. I’m becoming increasingly critical of many of my colleagues in my own tribe. As it relates to this, I think they’ve gotten soft over the years. Some of the most spellbinding orators who have great command of the English language don’t have self-confidence [that] they can persuade their constituents to do and accept hard things. It’s really unfortunate.

What are some of those acceptable trade-offs that are going to be necessary?

Well, sometimes in a war context, it’s casualties. That’s the most serious sacrifice I can think of. Other times, it’s economic sacrifice. Maybe in the interim, as we carry out a plan to open up the Strait of Hormuz and ensure that the principle of free traffic on international waterways is upheld, there will be economic sacrifices required. Maybe there’s a risk that, as we’re focused on one front, it distracts us from the much-emphasized pivot to China, and something could happen. These are the types of things we have to be honest about with the American people.

Join Emmy Award-winning journalist Peter Hamby, along with the team of expert journalists at Puck, as they let you in on the conversations insiders are having across the four corners of power in America: Wall Street, Washington, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood. Presented in partnership with Audacy, new episodes publish daily, Monday through Friday.

Unique and privileged insight into the private conversations taking place inside boardrooms and corner offices up and down Wall Street, relayed by best-selling author, journalist, and former M&A senior banker William D. Cohan.

Need help? Review our FAQ page or contact us for assistance. For brand partnerships, email ads@puck.news.

You received this email because you signed up to receive emails from Puck, or as part of your Puck account associated with {{customer.email}}. To stop receiving this newsletter and/or manage all your email preferences, click here.

Puck is published by Heat Media LLC. 107 Greenwich St., New York, NY 10006

SEE THE ARCHIVES