The brutal Israel–Gaza conflict that erupted on Saturday coincided with a uniquely tumultuous period in Congress, arriving just days after Republican infighting left the House without a speaker and the government at a standstill.
Broad bipartisan swaths of the legislature reaffirmed their support for Israel as the conflict dragged on, but with the House’s top job still vacant lawmakers also voiced worries over how substantial and rapid a response the U.S. will ultimately be able to muster.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) voiced his desire for a robust U.S. response that he hopes will ensure “Israel gets whatever it needs to defend itself,” he said in an interview with The Daily Beast on Sunday.
“I’m sure they’re rapidly going through the Iron Dome defenses and we need to make sure that their systems are replenished,” Schiff said.
Of similar importance to the California lawmaker are the U.S.’ intelligence-sharing capabilities. The breach of Israeli compounds and military outposts by Hamas militants caught officials off guard and raised questions as to what led to the widespread security failures.
“It is really chilling that an attack this massive, this coordinated, could take place and if I were still on the Intelligence Committee, I would want to know: what did we know? When did we know it? And really make sure that that intelligence cooperation is seamless,” Schiff said.
House turmoil raised concerns for Schiff and other lawmakers as they weigh what steps to take next.
Republicans are set to wage a contentious battle for the speakership later this week following Kevin McCarthy’s ouster. Until then, the chamber remains leaderless, and it is unclear what actions lawmakers may be able to take before any consensus is reached.
“Right now we have a problem—there’s nobody in the Speaker’s chair, but even when there is someone in the Speaker’s chair, they have to allow important things to come to the forefront. And I am concerned with the level of dysfunction and what that might mean,” Schiff said.
The sentiment has been shared among other representatives across both sides of the aisle. Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) called McCarthy’s removal “idiotic” in the wake of the conflict in Israel, writing on X that “Uncertainty and chaos in the U.S. breeds vulnerability around the world. The House should immediately reinstate McCarthy and stop screwing around.”
Schiff, also a candidate for the California Senate seat once held by the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein, defended the decision by Democrats to not come to McCarthy’s aid during a campaign stop Saturday, citing a deep distrust for his fellow California lawmaker that dates back over a decade.
Speaking to prospective voters in the back room of Elijah’s Restaurant in San Diego, Schiff recalled a flight he took with McCarthy in 2010 where the pair discussed the impending midterm elections, each predicting their respective parties would ultimately triumph.
Then, “unbeknownst to me, he went off and did a briefing, and he told the press Republicans were definitely going to win the midterms. In fact, he said he sat next to Adam Schiff on the plane, and even Adam Schiff said Republicans were going to win them,” Schiff said.
After McCarthy’s version of events made its way into the press, Schiff confronted him on the floor of the House.
“I said, ‘Kevin, first of all, we were having a private conversation on the plane. I would have thought it was a private conversation, but if it wasn’t, you know, you told the press the exact opposite of what I said.’ And he looks at me and he says, ‘Yeah, I know Adam, but you know how it goes,’” Schiff said.
“So when folks asked ‘why didn’t Democrats come to the rescue of Kevin McCarthy?’ It’s because none of us trust him,” he continued.
Schiff suggested that should House Republicans fail to find consensus in the upcoming speaker election there is a “remote” possibility for Democrats to work with the party to find a compromise speaker.
Speaking with the Daily Beast, Schiff declined to say who he’d root for if that ends up the case, but said that “there are any number of people that I think could be candidates who—even if their ideology was very different—at least were people where their word meant something, which would be a sharp contrast to what we have in McCarthy.”
