Republicans have two months to act on national security

OPINION:

Republicans have roughly two months before the next Congress convenes. After their midterm losses, they can either spend that time arguing over blame or use the authority they still hold to enact a focused national security agenda.

They should begin with measures to curb support for the Taliban, confront terrorist networks and settle the future of American foreign assistance.

The case for acting is straightforward. Executive action can redirect policy, but legislation can give that policy greater durability and clearer limits. Republicans who want President Trump’s priorities to survive beyond his administration must do the legislative work while they still have the opportunity.

That requires choosing. A lame-duck session cannot accommodate every campaign promise, and a congressional majority cannot guarantee the votes needed to enact a law. Leaders should focus on proposals with clear security objectives and plausible paths through both chambers.

Start with the No Tax Dollars for Terrorists Act (H.R. 260). The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the measure in February. The Senate-reported version would rescind certain Afghanistan reconstruction funds and require State Department reporting on efforts to identify and curtail financial and material support for the Taliban.

Republicans should prioritize completing this legislation. The goal should be enforceable safeguards to prevent support from reaching the Taliban, with clear responsibilities for the agencies administering assistance. Americans deserve an explanation of where their money goes and how the government prevents its diversion. Humanitarian objectives cannot substitute for accountability.

Next, Congress should advance legislation addressing the Muslim Brotherhood and its branches. The Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2025 (H.R. 4397), introduced by Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, Florida Republican, offers a legislative starting point. Its introductory text calls for identifying branches, evaluating their activities against terrorism-designation criteria and imposing specified sanctions.

The final legislation should make the evidentiary standards and enforcement obligations clear. Counterterrorism policy is strongest when it identifies particular organizations, documents their conduct and applies the law consistently. Congressional reporting requirements can compel an administration to explain its decisions and provide lawmakers with a basis for sustained oversight. Republicans should seek agreement on those obligations rather than settle for another declaration of concern.

Third, Congress should decide the future of the U.S. Agency for International Development in law. H.R. 1123 proposes abolishing the agency. Republicans who support that objective should explain which functions would end, which would continue elsewhere and who would be accountable for the transition.

A serious abolition plan must address existing obligations, oversight and the administration of any assistance Congress chooses to preserve. Those details determine whether restructuring produces a more accountable system or merely shifts the same problems to another office. Congress should clearly define the responsibilities and limits so that officials and taxpayers can understand them.

These priorities require a strategy for passage. Under ordinary Senate procedures, ending debate on most legislation requires 60 votes when all seats are filled. Republican leaders should identify potential Democratic support, resolve differences between House and Senate texts and devote floor time to measures that can reach the president. Committee approval is progress, but it is not enactment.

The election also imposes a political obligation. Republicans should acknowledge the result and make a public case for each proposal. A narrow agenda with specific safeguards is more defensible than an attempt to rush an entire ideological wish list through the departing Congress. Members should have time to examine the text and explain their votes.

Enactment would matter after Jan. 3. A new congressional majority could pursue repeal, but legislation would still require the president’s signature or a successful veto override. Overriding a veto requires two-thirds of those voting in each chamber, with a quorum present. Nor can a new Congress simply cancel an executive action — it would need to pass legislation defunding or superseding it, which still requires the president’s signature or a successful veto override. That gives President Trump a meaningful role in defending laws enacted before the transfer of congressional control.

This does not make those laws permanent. Future Congresses retain legislative and spending powers, courts can review legal challenges, and implementation still matters. The advantage of legislation is that it establishes a statutory framework that future officials must confront.

Republicans cannot reverse the election results in a lame-duck session. They can demonstrate that they understand the difference between campaigning on national security and governing on it.

The remaining weeks should produce carefully drafted laws, clear enforcement duties and votes the public can judge. The work of this Congress is not finished.

• Tera Dahl-Jones served as deputy chief of staff for the National Security Council under President Trump and as a senior adviser in the State Department’s Bureau of Counterterrorism.