One-on-one interview with Sen. Lisa Murkowski on March 6, 2026.
Q: Thank you for being here, Sen. Murkowski . NBC News reported today that a source close to President Trump had privately expressed he would be interested in sending a small number of boots on the ground to Iran .
Do you see that as an escalation? And had you heard of that?In a classified briefing that members of the Senate had with members of the administration earlier this week, it was very directly asked, “Will there be boots on the ground?” Secretary Hegseth—and this has been reported in the full press, so I’m not doing anything out of school here—confirmed, “We’re not going to determine or broadcast ahead of time what we will and will not do.” So the idea of boots on the ground is still out there. But I think that most members I’ve been discussing these issues with recognize that that would bring this military operation in Iran to a different level. And I think this is where there is elevated anxiety and concern about: What’s the mission? Where are we going? This operation is not yet one week old. It is just shy of one week, as you and I are sitting here and talking. And it was articulated at the beginning that this was designed to degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities, and the way that the Secretary of War was intending to target this was by going after the Navy, going after the ballistic missiles, and really eroding the capability for Iran to protect itself while it built out its nuclear capability. Then you have the message that the people of Iran need to rise up and take back their country, moving towards a regime change. We’ve seen greater suggestion by the President just in the past 24 hours that the United States would actually have a role in selecting who would come next. These are, in my view, troubling signs of an expanded view of what we are doing in Iran. I have said very clearly, our focus needs to be to ensure that the men and women who are engaged in this fight, in combat with an enemy who has been hating America for generations, who has killed Americans previously—our commitment needs to be to ensure that they have the support to do the mission, to do the job, and then to return home safely. So I think what most people want to know is: Where are we going with this? I think that Congress has a role here in oversight with hearings. It has a role in addressing what we refer to as an authorization of use of military force, and really to press the administration for clarity so that the mission is defined and our troops are supported.A: It’s interesting because there’s been a lot of debate about how we define war. We had a vote on the War Powers Act as to whether or not Congress should declare war. That did not pass in either body. And I did not support it at the time because it was very clear that with that War Powers authorization, basically requiring a withdrawal of troops, that action would put at risk those who are in the fight as we speak. So when we describe whether it is war or whether it is a military operation or hostilities, the reality is that we are engaged in a fight with an enemy. And whether we call it war or whether we call it a military operation, the mission needs to be clearly defined. The scope needs to be defined. And I think the president needs to address just that instead of suggestions that it is escalating to a point that, to use his words, “nothing short of unconditional surrender” will be satisfactory. That pretty much takes off the table the ability to negotiate. So I haven’t gotten so caught up in: Are we calling it a war? Are we calling it hostilities? Are we calling it a military operation? What I know is that we are in combat. We have already lost six American lives, with the potential for more losses. And we have a responsibility to those who are placing themselves in harm’s way to defend us, to be there for them.Q: Do you think Congress, at this point, has the will or the ability to assert its role, as you’ve described, in authorizing further funding or operations and insisting on oversight? Or are we past the point of return? A: The direct answer is: yes, Congress has the role, the authority, and we need to have the will to do our job. You can argue—there are some of my colleagues who do not believe that the War Powers Resolution is constitutional. They’ve made that argument. I choose to disagree with them, but there’s a disagreement about that. What is not debatable is the role that Congress has when it comes to funding a war. We have the power of the purse. So we’ve been told to expect a supplemental request to fund our military. It should be up to Congress towards the end of the month, I’m told. But if what happens is just—I’ve used the term loosely—an invoice laid down, saying, “This is how much we need,” whether it’s 20 billion dollars or 50, with just a take-it-or-leave-it, “We expect you to do it,” that’s not the way to engage Congress. That’s not the way to gain the support that you’re going to need in order to make sure that our troops have exactly what they need. So the president needs to make the case for the mission and the scope. The administration, the Secretary of Defense, Secretary Hegseth, needs to work with Congress, outline what he needs and why, and the schedule on all of this. We actually have our first oversight hearing for the Defense Appropriations Committee scheduled for this coming week, and I’m looking forward to getting greater clarity as to what we might expect. You’ve asked a fair question about the will of Congress. And I think it’s important to recognize that hearings are something that we do and we must do when it comes to the status of the war, the status of those who are in countries that are under threat and who are seeking avenues of safe exit. I’ve just come from my office here in Anchorage, walking through how we’re trying to help 13 different Alaskans from a southeastern community get out of Israel safely. What’s the plan with the State Department? Walk us through these things. Walk us through what to anticipate with the level of spending. So it’s oversight. It’s appropriations. And we need to be engaged in determining the authorization for use of military force. We haven’t done an AUMF since 2002. We’ve lost the muscle memory there. When I’ve been talking to my colleagues about, “Doesn’t it make sense that we would want to put some guardrails, some contours?” there is good discussion about it, but the reality is that we have not taken that next step to do just that. If we return to work at the first of next week and the President says, “Mission accomplished, we’re done, we’re out of here,” I think you still have the reality that you have a region that has been rocked. You have allies, some of them stunned that the U.S. and Israel moved into Iran without giving a clear heads-up for better preparation. So there is still much work to be done in the region, even if there were to be an end of the hostilities immediately, which I don’t anticipate is going to happen. I don’t anticipate it happening soon, not with the signals that we’re getting.Q: Okay. What have you observed in the way that the State Department has operated in response or in reaction to a week of conflict? And how do you think that’s been impacted by the layoffs that have happened in the past year? A: It’s hard to say the direct connection to staffing and the layoffs. It is very true that there are fewer people within the State Department to be there to answer the phone—whether it’s, as I mentioned earlier, trying to get a constituent out of an area that is threatened. But it goes beyond that. It also goes to the role that the United States was playing in the region from a humanitarian perspective. We were there not only with educational efforts, food efforts, humanitarian efforts. We were partners throughout many parts of the Middle East. And we’ve seen dramatic reductions in, whether it’s USAID or other programs within the State Department, that have left the United States more on its own. And when you are a country that is now engaged in a very aggressive attack in a region that has long been very volatile, you want to have your friends and your allies right there with you. You don’t want them questioning the role of the United States as a partner country.Q: I prepared this next question in terms of the President’s comments earlier this spring about taking Greenland by force. But my question really is about his decisions and his comments then. And I think we can reflect on that sort of singular decision-making in this instance as well, in terms of whether or not our allies are included in those conversations. Do you think that the post-war world that was built on the United States’ support for largely democratic allies is over?In the first Trump administration, you’ll recall that Trump rattled some cages with our NATO allies by saying, “You all need to step it up in terms of your contribution of your GDP on defense. You need to take a more concerted effort and not necessarily count on the United States to be doing the heavy lifting for everybody.” That was disturbing to some; some took affront. And it’s interesting because in my conversations with leaders in other countries—other European countries, our NATO countries—they’ve said, “You know what, we needed to do that. It was a little bit of a wake-up call. We didn’t like the way it was delivered, but it was a message that was necessary. And in retrospect, it was really important.” That was an important change in the relationship. But I think you’re seeing a greater pivot, if you will, of our NATO allies, or maybe more specifically our allies in the European countries, that are looking more to how they work together as partners. Prime Minister Carney referred to it as the “middle powers”—the middle powers who are not the great superpowers, the United States or China, but the middle powers coming together and working and partnering more. I think you are seeing some of that happen. I think you are seeing more of our allies seeking to continue a strong relationship with the United States while at the same time knowing that it’s not putting all the eggs in one basket. How can we, from a trade perspective, from a defense perspective, be better aligned?Q: Okay. Earlier this year, President Trump attacked you by name for the war powers resolution to limit his efforts following the raid in Venezuela. And so you’ve shown a willingness to insist on a check of executive power in these instances. You’re describing what comes on Monday. What is that next step? And how does it affect you in your role as sort of a moderate in the building when the president is not happy with you for challenging him on this particular issue? A: I recognize that it is the people of Alaska that I have to respond to first. I work with the president, but I have to represent the people of my state. And I take that responsibility to heart every single day. And if that means that sometimes I have to stand up to the president and say I disagree, I do so. I think that’s important. Just because I am a Republican and the president is a Republican doesn’t mean that I should line up and say yes to everything that he does if I think that there is a wrong direction or if it’s something that doesn’t work for my state. So, where do we go from here? I feel very strongly that Congress has to assert itself in matters as weighty and important as war. I think most people would agree with me that, even given the support that a president has, he cannot unilaterally declare a war. He absolutely, under Article II powers, can direct actions to protect the country against imminent threat. And we also recognize that there are limitations to that in terms of how he must check in or consult with Congress. If we don’t hold him accountable to that shared construct, he’s going to do as much as he can unilaterally. So this is a matter for members of Congress to weigh in and not only demand levels of oversight and accountability through appropriations, but also look to those authorities that we have, whether it is the power to declare war and/or to define what military force can be authorized. We went through the vote last week on war powers. And I think many members felt, as I did, that because this was a situation where we were immersed in the fight when the vote was being held, it’s really difficult to say, “We need to tie the hands of the president,” as our troops are in danger. But that doesn’t mean that we cannot work to help articulate what the contours of this fight are. And that’s what an authorization of use of military force is designed to do. Is it something that people are well-versed on? No. You’re not really hearing anybody talking about it. Is it something that we apparently need to be? I think so. So I think that’s where the conversations start next week.Q: Okay. Pivoting a little bit, this week you supported the president’s pick of Oklahoma Senator Markwayne Mullin to be the next Homeland Security Secretary. Tell me why you supported this decision. A: I said probably two months ago that Secretary Noem had lost my confidence. This was following the shootings in Minnesota. I said I felt that the president would be better served if he were to find somebody else to serve as the secretary. Obviously that’s his decision, and he didn’t listen to me at the time. But I think, given the actions that we have seen—not only in Minnesota, but even prior to that with how she has handled the FEMA contracts and some of what I would call mismanagement within a very important agency—people were looking the other way, and it finally caught up. I have stated my support for Senator Mullin. He served in the House. He’s been in the Senate now for several years. He has good, strong relationships in both bodies, on both sides of the aisle. He is very comfortable working with people within the administration already. He has been instrumental in working with me on some of the Indian Affairs matters that I have been working on, where I need help with members in the House, where I need help with folks in the administration. He has been a good partner in that. And so I am looking forward to seeing him in this position. He’s kind of a no-nonsense guy—straight-talking. And I think he’s going to look very critically at the operations within Homeland Security, not only what’s going on with ICE and CBP, but more broadly. I think he’ll bring some order to it.Q: Okay. Describe for me right now what you feel is at stake for Alaska as this funding shutdown of DHS continues. We obviously have a lot with FEMA working here. We have a huge Coast Guard presence. There’s lots of DHS presence here outside of ICE. A: Yes. Coast Guard, obviously, is very significant to us. Men and women are still going out and rescuing fishermen at sea and doing all the work that they do. They deserve to not have to worry about their pay. We understand that most are receiving their paychecks, but you don’t have that certainty. TSA—just coming through the airport today, those men and women are working without pay yet again. They just went through a 64-day shutdown in October–November. They shouldn’t have to do this. FEMA—you mentioned what’s been on hold with grants, the FEMA supports that have been not only on pause because of the shutdown, but also because you had a secretary who was just sitting on a backlog of approvals for months and months and months. So there’s much within the Department of Homeland Security that is at risk right now because it’s not functioning like it needs to. One agency that has not been talked about a lot is CISA. This is the entity that basically runs cyber operations for Homeland Security. When you think about the global threats right now and the actions in Iran, don’t for a minute think that they’re isolated to just Iran. The threats to the homeland are also very real. So making sure that those who are working within the cybersecurity agencies are getting the support, validation, and pay that they need—they’re also part of this. This is something that has continued for too long. It has been unfortunate that the negotiations, in terms of how we get out of this shutdown, have been limited to just the Democratic leadership and a few folks in the White House. It’s really been under lock and key. I think there needs to be a broader circle of how we’re going to resolve this and provide clarity to the people in the department itself. It’s too important and it’s not right. We’ve got to get this one behind us. For those who say, “We can’t fund these agencies because we’re mad at the agencies, because we feel that you’ve overreached,” that overlooks the value of the entire agency. If you’re mad at ICE and you think that by keeping DHS closed you’re cutting off funding for ICE, you’re wrong. The funding that came to ICE through the reconciliation bill is keeping them afloat. They are exempted; they’re deemed essential employees, so they’re getting paid. So you’re not punishing that agency if that is your intent. You’re punishing your Coast Guard men and women, the people making sure that we’re safe when we’re going through TSA screening, the people who have been victims in a disaster, whether in North Carolina or here in Alaska. That’s not right.Q: Do you support the significant budget increases and staffing increases within ICE? A: We needed to do more within our broader border security budget. I think that was realistic. I don’t deny that we need to have those who are available to enforce our laws. But I want to make sure that our laws are enforced lawfully, right? So if we are going to bring more ICE employees in, if we’re going to plus up that budget, I want to make sure they have full training. I’m now learning that perhaps we have cut back—and perhaps dramatically—on the training, which could be what leads to the escalatory issues that we saw play out in Minneapolis a few weeks back. So, do we need to make sure that we are able to secure our borders? I believe that we do. But I also want to make sure that as we secure our borders, as we enforce our laws, we enforce them lawfully, and we give the men and women we have tasked with the mission clear guidance. They do not have carte blanche to enforce as they will. They must abide by the laws. They need to have the training and the support to do so.Q: Okay. I wanted to ask you about some legislation you recently introduced to fund tsunami preparedness in Alaska. Can you describe that legislation—what you want it to accomplish? A: I have been working on several different measures. We put it in the natural hazards bucket: tsunamis, earthquakes, and landslides. We have been successful in moving each of these measures through the process. It is primarily focused on monitoring and early warning. We know in Alaska that with as much seismic activity as we have, we can see tsunamis triggered in our coastal communities—great threats. So it’s not only monitoring, it’s early warning. And it’s not just Alaska. It’s our coastal communities up and down the Pacific Coast and in Hawaii. I’ve been working on the tsunami side. We were successful with our landslides hazards legislation—again, monitoring and as much early warning as we can. I wish that we could say that we could eliminate the threats, but we know we can’t. So the better prepared we can be, the better.Q: Okay. The Forest Service recently signed a stewardship agreement with the state of Alaska. It looks at a variety of goals over the next 20 years, including satisfying the President’s goal of increasing timber output. Do you agree with this sort of federal–state agreement, particularly in terms of the production that the President wants to see? A: I think the President’s goal of ensuring that we are able to produce more timber in America’s national forests is important. We in Alaska, between the Chugach and the Tongass, have extraordinary timber assets. We have not produced volumes of any measurable amount, really since the ’90s. That has been due to policies that go from supporting bringing the allowable timber harvest up to policies that literally pull the rug out from underneath your feet, like the roadless rule. So I think this is an effort to try to work between the state and the federal government, with shared participation. This is the first such stewardship program that we have seen. It’s fresh, it’s new. The volumes are, again, not near where we were a couple decades ago. But I think what they’re seeking to do is provide economic opportunity in regions where you do have a timber base, recognizing the potential for second-growth timber. It is still a reality that much of the infrastructure for the timber industry has moved on. So there’s much work to be done in this effort, and I think there needs to be much engagement with the communities in the regions that are part of the stewardship agreement.ANWR leasing, NPRA & industry interest Q: Okay. Let’s see here. I’ll be picky choosy. In February, let’s talk about ANWR. In early February, the Trump administration announced it’s seeking suggestions for ANWR sites to auction off for oil development. HR1 mandated four new ANWR lease sales. There haven’t been any significant bites from industry. Why do you think that is and what’s next with that? A: Keep in mind that at the same time we have the mandated sales in ANWR, we have additional sales coming available within the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska. So two parts of the North Slope: one closer to infrastructure—that’s within NPRA—and one that is just more geologically interesting in terms of having conducted seismic work and better understanding the resource there. From the perspective of where there is more interest within the industry right now, I think it’s probably fair to say it is on the NPRA side as opposed to the ANWR side. And, truth be told, ANWR is still—even though it has been made available for leasing—viewed by many as an area that should be untouchable. I have spent time up on the North Slope. I recognize the fragile environment, and yet the incredibly hardy and amazingly tough environment that is out there. I have great respect for the people that call this area home, and I also have great respect for the industry that chooses to operate up there, with constraints on them like no place else in the world. But I also know that it’s a hard place to work. It’s expensive to work up there, and the conditions are really challenging. When companies are looking at whether they’re going to make a bid on a lease in a place like ANWR versus a place down in Montana, Texas, Louisiana, where you’ve got infrastructure and can tie right in, we understand why we don’t get the number of takers we might want.Q: Okay. Could I ask you one more question about current energy? I’m curious what you think needs to be done to keep energy prices—gas and oil—from fluctuating while this conflict unravels. What are you seeing happening? What do you think needs to happen, and what are you concerned about? A: It does not surprise me at all that we have seen the price of oil shoot up—dramatically. We’re now over $90 a barrel today. There’s shock value to that, right? But we had to assume that when you go into a fight in Iran, you’re going to see oil prices spike. The real question is: Is this just a temporary spike? Is this going to be longer term? What will the situation in the Strait of Hormuz be in terms of being able to move anything? There is a lot that is unknown right now. What is known is that when the price goes up at the pump—as it has probably at least 25 cents a gallon just in the past month—people are paying attention to that at a time when we’re going into elections and people are focused on affordability. They can see things posted when they drive by the gas station. They can see it when they look at their monthly utility statement and see the price of gas going up. These are the things where you may not really be following the situation in the war, you might not really have taken a position there, but when you realize that it’s having an impact on your ability to balance your family’s budget, that’s when you get engaged. You ask a good question: What can be done about it? I know that the White House is bouncing this question around a lot. There’s been some suggestion that there might be a gas tax holiday. That to me is just a short-term fix to make you believe that it didn’t really happen. I don’t know that that is effective. But is it something that the White House might be looking at to take the sting out of things temporarily? I wouldn’t put it past them at all. There is a role for Congress in that, too. I would suggest that you’re going to be seeing some actions coming out of the White House in an effort to respond quickly, because this is one of those pinch points that doesn’t sit well with the message that the President is trying to send—that nothing short of unconditional surrender is going to be satisfactory. If people in this country hear that and then keep watching the price of oil go up to their detriment, it’s not going to sit well.Q: Do you think that there is enough time before the midterms for—gas, groceries, healthcare, housing, all expensive right now, childcare expensive—for affordability to not be such a pain point leading into the midterms? Is there time, opportunity, and understanding within the GOP right now to take the actions necessary? And do they see it as a pain point? It was noticeably missing as a topic from the State of the Union. A: It was noticeably missing. And this is where I think you’re starting to see this division, even with some of the President’s strongest supporters, because they’re focused on what they’re dealing with at home right now—that their kids are still living with them in their early twenties because they can’t afford a house. We just saw the jobs numbers today. Affordability, affordability, affordability—it is what everyone is talking about. So we’re going to be seeing shortly a request for, I’m assuming, a pretty sizable war supplemental. If people in this country are thinking, “Well, my taxpayer dollars are now going to fight what could be a never-ending war, and I’m still having to pay all these high prices”—all the impacts from the tariffs that we saw, the impacts of oil and gas price spikes—this is where you don’t have a lot of time between now and the midterms to figure it out. Where is the president going to put his priorities, right? I think right now he’s made very clear: he’s focused on what is going on in Iran. I don’t know, maybe next week it’s going to be Cuba. But what does that do to make your life at home more affordable? These are the things that I think the White House needs to be thinking about as we move into—well, we’re finishing up the first quarter of 2026. These are very real issues for people.‘Like a jet blasted you in the face’: 85 mph Arctic storm winds trap 150 people at Alaska basketball tournamentOne person killed in snowmachine collision in Western Alaska2026 Iditarod Live BlogLawmakers propose per-student BSA funding increase after leaders say education is deterioratingAlaska North Slope oil prices soar as lawmakers urge ‘fiscal discipline’ Wasilla man who killed mom, brother at age 12 pleads not guilty to new murder charges in Anchorage woman’s death
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Brazilian Oil Spill's Reach: Oil Travels 5,200 Miles to Florida ShoresA new study reveals that oil from a 2019 spill off the coast of Brazil traveled over 5,200 miles across the Atlantic Ocean, eventually washing up on the shores of Palm Beach, Florida. Researchers used chemical analysis and ocean current modeling to trace the oil, highlighting the impact of plastic debris in transporting pollutants.
Read more »
BLACKPINK’s Lisa Shares Adorable Moments With Viral Monkey Punch in JapanBLACKPINK’s Lisa took a break from her busy schedule to visit Punch the monkey in Japan.
Read more »
Lindsey Graham criticizes Israel for striking Iranian oil facilitiesSen. Lindsey Graham and Trump administration officials were displeased with Israeli airstrikes on Iranian oil facilities.
Read more »
Trump says short term oil price spikes 'very small price' for peaceToday's Video Headlines: 03/08/26
Read more »
Oil Price Prediction Markets Brace for Supply Shock as Price Hits $100WTI crude oil has surged past $100 amid Iran tensions. See how traders are using the latest oil price prediction market data on Kalshi.
Read more »
Lisa Rinna Talks Helping Rob Rausch Buy Maura Higgins' BirkinLisa Rinna opened up about helping Rob Rausch purchase a Birkin bag for Maura Higgins after their time on 'The Traitors'
Read more »