Jane Harman: Congress 'Chickens Out' on Iran Talks
March 23, 20268 min readDeep Dive
Fazen Markets Research
AI-Enhanced Analysis
Jane HarmanCongressIranDHS fundingU.S. politics
Jane Harman, the former Democratic representative and one-time ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, told Bloomberg on March 23, 2026 that "Congress always chickens out" when faced with high-stakes negotiations over the war with Iran and domestic funding questions (Bloomberg, Mar 23, 2026). Her assessment — delivered in a widely circulated video on March 23 — framed congressional behavior as risk-averse and institutionally deficient at moments when executive-branch diplomacy and appropriations deadlines intersect. The observation lands against a calendar with binding deadlines for Defense and Homeland Security spending and a legislative body of 535 elected representatives whose capacity to forge compromise has been questioned by multiple oversight and research bodies (U.S. Congress). With global risk to US interests elevated, Harman’s comment reframes a procedural stalemate as a strategic liability rather than mere political theater. This piece examines the factual base behind that assessment, quantifies the institutional exposures, and evaluates implications for markets and governance.
Harman’s critique comes at a time when the United States faces heightened tension in the Middle East and recurring intra-Congress disputes over appropriations. The Bloomberg video documenting her comments was published on March 23, 2026 and cites her experience on the House Intelligence Committee and longstanding relationships across the aisle (Bloomberg, Mar 23, 2026). Congressional dysfunction on foreign-policy oversight and appropriations is not new, but the combination of a potentially escalatory theatre in the Persian Gulf and a compressed budget calendar magnifies the costs of inaction. The US federal fiscal year begins on October 1 each year, which concentrates spending deadlines into a narrow legislative window and forces trade-offs when Congress resorts to short-term continuing resolutions (U.S. Treasury).
Institutional design matters. The House of Representatives (435 members) and the Senate (100 members) have divergent incentives, electoral rhythms, and committee prerogatives; those structural differences help explain why full-year appropriations bills have become less predictable outcomes in the modern era (U.S. Congress). The consequence is that executive-branch actors increasingly rely on temporary funding vehicles or ad hoc authorizations to manage crises — a pattern that compresses negotiating levers and creates asymmetric risk for agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In practical terms, DHS counts on roughly $70 billion in annual discretionary appropriations to staff border operations, cybersecurity programs, and disaster response capacities, a figure that is small in absolute terms relative to defense but large enough to have meaningful operational impact if disrupted (Congressional Research Service, FY2024).
The political dynamics behind Harman’s phrase — "chickens out" — are observable in roll-call politics, committee gatekeeping, and party-leader calculus. High-stakes diplomatic initiatives (for example, shuttle diplomacy around Iran) often require at least tacit congressional buy-in to sustain appropriations and oversight. When Congress refrains from taking an active negotiating role, as Harman states, it shifts the burden to the executive branch to balance diplomacy and force posture without explicit legislative endorsement. That has implications for both the quality of policy decisions and the predictability of funding for operations central to national security and homeland resilience.
Three concrete datapoints frame the institutional exposure Harman highlights. First, the Bloomberg interview noting her diagnosis was published on March 23, 2026 (Bloomberg, Mar 23, 2026). Second, the US legislative branch comprises 535 voting members — 435 in the House and 100 in the Senate — a structural fact that shapes the incentives around coalition-building and committee negotiation (U.S. Congress). Third, DHS discretionary appropriations run in the order of roughly $70 billion per annum for base operations, according to Congressional Research Service estimates for recent fiscal years (CRS, FY2024). Each datapoint anchors a different vector of risk: timing, institutional scale, and operational funding.
Beyond those three anchors, comparison clarifies scope. DHS’s roughly $70 billion budget is an order of magnitude smaller than the Department of Defense’s top-line discretionary budgets, which have been in the high hundreds of billions of dollars in recent fiscal cycles; that comparison illustrates why congressional inattention has asymmetric operational consequences — a smaller agency’s budget is more vulnerable to near-term disruption (Congressional Research Service, FY2024). Likewise, contrasting the two chambers — 435 representatives vs 100 senators — helps explain why House procedural rules can amplify partisan tactics, while the Senate’s filibuster dynamics bend negotiations toward extended horsetrading. These institutional contrasts are not simply academic; they change where leverage exists when the nation faces a foreign-policy flare-up requiring resources, authorizations, or legislative signaling.
Finally, the timing of Harman's comments coincides with a media and policy cycle that gives outsized attention to whether Congress will authorize or constrain executive action. That signaling effect — separate from final appropriations votes — affects allies, adversaries, and markets, and can be embedded in risk premia for defense contractors, insurance underwriters, and commodity traders. For market participants and policy analysts tracking the institutional capacity to act, these data points provide a framework for quantifying a political component of risk.
If Congress steps back from active negotiation on Iran-related policy and domestic funding bills, immediate sectoral impacts follow. Homeland security operations — border management, immigration courts, cybersecurity defense — rely on predictable appropriations for workforce retention and program continuity. A suspension or delay of full-year DHS funding encourages government agencies to prioritize mission-critical expenditures and defer investment, which can slow procurement cycles for vendors and delay grants to state and local partners. For private-sector entities that contract with DHS, a disruption in a $70 billion-per-year funding stream creates backlog risk and can materially affect quarterly revenue guidance for mid-sized contractors.
Defense-related industries also feel the effect. Although defense appropriations are larger in nominal terms, uncertainty about broad US strategic posture (stemming from congressional passivity) can lengthen procurement schedules and distort equities valuations for prime contractors. Credit markets and insurers calibrate sovereign and policy risk into spreads; a visibly paralyzed legislature increases the probability of stop-gap funding measures that carry execution risk for long-lead programs. Internationally, allies evaluating burden-sharing commitments look for congressional signals. The absence of such signals — precisely Harman’s point — introduces friction into multilateral planning and can elevate demand for contingency stockpiles and private-sector risk mitigation services.
Macroeconomic spillovers are modest but non-negligible. In a worst-case political deadlock that precipitates a partial government shutdown or materially delays appropriations, GDP growth can be affected in a narrow timeframe through federal wage interruptions and suspended contracts. Bond markets typically react to fiscal uncertainty through spread movement and liquidity repricing; investors seek clarity because predictable fiscal flows underpin municipal grants and federal contract revenue expectations. The practical upshot for institutional allocators is that governance risk, while not always front-page fodder, feeds through to cash flows and risk premia in identifiable sectors.
The principal risk Harman identifies is political inaction — a failure to exercise the legislative role when stakes are high. This risk materializes in several ways: first, through operational disruption to agencies like DHS that require stable funding to maintain readiness; second, through strategic ambiguity that can embolden adversaries or unsettle allies; and third, through market volatility where politicized funding risks alter cost-of-capital assumptions for affected sectors. Each pathway is empirically tractable: funding shortfalls reduce program outlays, strategic ambiguity changes risk assessments, and markets price uncertainty in spreads and volatility indices.
Probability and impact assessments differ. The probability of episodic legislative passivity is high given recent patterns of short-term financing; the impact, however, ranges from moderate (project delays, contract deferments) to severe (compromised readiness in acute crisis contexts). Historical episodes where Congress deferred critical decisions show measurable operational consequences, but they rarely translate into long-run fiscal collapses; rather, the principal economic effect is a timing mismatch that redistributes costs across fiscal quarters. Analysts should therefore model both a baseline scenario of short delays and a tail scenario of protracted authorization fights, each with distinct cost profiles for affected sectors.
Mitigation levers are institutional and market-based. Executive contingency planning, agency-level reprogramming authorities, and contractor contract clauses are the immediate administrative responses. Markets can hedge by adjusting exposure to government-dependent cash flows and by repricing credit for vendors with heavy federal concentration. Longer-term mitigation requires structural reform to appropriations processes — a politically fraught prospect that is precisely what Harman said Congress avoids — suggesting that investors and policymakers must plan for recurrent, predictable episodes of legislative risk rather than expecting a one-time fix.
From Fazen Capital’s viewpoint, Harman’s blunt assessment is a signal to incorporate legislative passivity systematically into scenario analysis rather than treating it as episodic noise. Our contrarian insight is that the markets often over-rotate: immediate repricing tends to overshoot on first-day headlines but underprice the medium-term operational drag that accrues from repeated short-term funding. In other words, a single continuing resolution may have limited economic cost, but a sequence of stop-gap measures produces persistent inefficiencies that lower expected returns on government-dependent investments.
Consequently, portfolio construction and risk management should differentiate between firms with short-duration, interruptible federal revenue streams and those with durable, multi-year contracts or diversified customer bases. Additionally, geopolitical signal risk — the market reaction to congressional silence on foreign-policy questions — can be hedged mechanically through derivative positions in commodities and currencies and operationally by shifting exposure toward global suppliers less tied to US federal procurement cycles. Institutional investors should treat legislative gridlock as a chronic backdrop and adopt defensive tilts that are cost-effective over multi-quarter horizons.
Finally, Fazen Capital recommends integrating qualitative political intelligence (committee calendars, whip counts, public statements by senior appropriators) into quant models. That hybrid approach improves the timeliness of position adjustments when legislative deadlines approach and provides a data-driven mechanism to price legislative inaction into expected cash flows. For more on our macro and geopolitical framework see our insights hub: topic.
If Congress continues to abstain from proactive negotiation, the short-term trajectory points to a continuation of stop-gap measures and ad hoc executive responses. Operational consequences for DHS and related sectors will be concentrated around program starts, hiring, and capital acquisitions, producing measurable but not necessarily systemic economic effects. Over the medium term, persistent legislative avoidance reduces policy predictability, which tends to increase risk premia for affected industries and can encourage private-sector substitution where feasible.
A clearer alternative path would require an institutional recalibration: renewed cross-branch dialogue, targeted authorizations for contingency operations, and procedural reforms to appropriations timing. That outcome would lower the political risk premium and reduce costly uncertainty but depends on political incentives shifting — a nontrivial condition. In the absence of such a shift, markets, vendors, and allied governments should expect recurring episodes of constrained congressional engagement when decisive leadership could materially change operational outcomes.
Practically, observers should watch three near-term indicators: formal committee schedules and markup votes, public statements from appropriations leadership in both chambers, and the presence or absence of broad bipartisan negotiation initiatives. These signals typically precede substantive shifts and provide a narrow window for preemptive portfolio adjustments. For ongoing updates and scenario analysis, see our geopolitical coverage and macro briefs: topic.
Q: How does a continuing resolution (CR) actually affect DHS operations in practice?
A: A CR typically funds agencies at current-year or reduced rates, constraining new program starts and capital procurement. Under a CR, DHS can continue mission-critical operations — payroll and ongoing contracts are generally maintained — but it must defer discrete new initiatives and grant awards. Over multiple CRs, workforce hiring freezes and deferred maintenance can accumulate, creating operational risk that is difficult to remediate quickly once full funding resumes.
Q: Historically, has congressional inaction materially shifted US foreign-policy outcomes?
A: There are precedents where congressional passivity altered strategic calculations. In the absence of clear legislative mandates, administrations have tended to rely on executive authorities for limited actions or negotiate ad hoc authorizations with constrained scopes. That pattern can change the bargaining dynamics with adversaries and allies by removing a predictable legislative endorsement or constraint, which in turn affects diplomatic leverage and the credibility of long-term commitments.
Jane Harman’s stark appraisal — delivered March 23, 2026 — underscores an operational risk: congressional avoidance of hard choices raises measurable funding and strategic vulnerabilities for DHS and broader US policy. Investors and policymakers should treat legislative passivity as a persistent risk factor and incorporate it into scenario-based planning.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.
Sponsored
Open a demo account in 30 seconds. No deposit required.
CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.