D.C. ROCKED - REPUBLICAN REVEALS TRUTH ON MITCH MCCONNELL
West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito delivered the latest assessment of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s recovery Monday.
Capito told reporters that a recent visitor found the longtime Kentucky Republican sharp and focused solely on building his physical strength after more than six weeks away from the Capitol.
Video journalist Nicholas Ballasy approached Capito in a Capitol hallway over the weekend and asked directly: “Do you have any idea what’s going on with McConnell? What his condition is right now? Have you heard an update?”
Capito replied: “I mean, I think, obviously, the public information, the information that I have, is that Senator McConnell is recovering and is, uh, healing, and is in a, uh, rehabilitation hospital. I talked with somebody yesterday who visited him, and said that he’s clear-minded and he just needs to get stronger.”
Pressed on whether she planned to visit the senator herself, Capito said she “might wait until he asks for visitors.”
Capito added, “I think, you know, anyone who’s been in the hospital or in a rehab facility, um, being visited, I think, is a pretty sensitive topic.”
The comments come as McConnell’s office continues to emphasize steady progress.
On Saturday, spokesman David Popp told The Washington Post that “the Senator continues to meet with staff regarding Senate and Kentucky business, including discussions on defense appropriations, foreign policy, the farm bill, constituent services, and constituent federal grant requests.”
Popp added, “As the Senator continues to improve in rehab, we will be sure to keep you updated.”
McConnell, 84, has not appeared publicly since mid-June, fueling wild online speculation that Republican leaders have repeatedly pushed back against.
Earlier this month, Senate Majority Leader John Thune confirmed a lengthy phone conversation with McConnell covering national security issues.
Majority Whip John Barrasso’s office said the two spoke for about 20 minutes and that McConnell “was fully engaged and is eager to get back to the Senate.”
Longtime McConnell ally and commentator Scott Jennings also reported a nearly 20-minute call in which the senator discussed Iran, Ukraine, Maine politics, and Senate history.
Those direct conversations from senior Republicans stand in contrast to those from some more junior colleagues, who have said they have not spoken with him personally.
Capito’s secondhand account from a visitor remains the most recent firsthand-adjacent report available.
The sequence of events began June 14, when McConnell was admitted to a Washington-area hospital after a fall at his home left him briefly unconscious.
WATCH:
On July 2, his office said he “continues to improve” while working with staff on Kentucky and Senate matters.
Speculation intensified online and in some media outlets, prompting Kentucky’s Democratic governor to demand more transparency publicly.
On July 12, McConnell broke his silence with a detailed personal statement and a photo alongside his wife, former Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao.
He explained that childhood polio had left him with lifelong mobility challenges that “haven’t exactly gotten easier to manage with age.”
The fall, he said, left him briefly unconscious but produced no broken bones, concussion, heart attack, stroke, tumors, or hemorrhages.
While hospitalized, he developed a mild case of pneumonia that responded to antibiotics. He had since moved to a rehabilitation center “where I’ll keep regaining my strength.”
A statement from the Office of the Attending Physician confirmed the medical findings and noted that the remainder of his care focused on physical therapy to reduce future fall risk.
McConnell made clear doctors had not yet cleared him to return to the Senate floor but stressed he continued working closely with legislative and constituent staff.
McConnell, who is retiring at the end of his current term in January 2027, has used the episode to underscore his determination to finish the job voters sent him to do
WATCH: Marco Rubio Hilariously Shuts Down Cory Booker by Calling Out His Lies to His Face in Live Hearing Smackdown
Secretary of State Marco Rubio dismantled Sen. Cory Booker’s claims about Iran during a heated Senate hearing, bluntly asking the New Jersey Democrat where he was getting the idea that the regime had emerged stronger from its war with the United States. Rubio pointed to Iran’s destroyed navy, damaged missile capabilities, crumbling industrial base, and deteriorating economy as Booker repeatedly claimed that the Trump administration had placed Tehran in a stronger negotiating position. Booker continued speaking after his allotted time expired, leading the committee chairman to cut him off and move the hearing along.
The exchange occurred during a June 2nd hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee concerning the State Department’s fiscal year 2027 budget request. Rubio appeared as the hearing’s sole witness and faced questions from committee members about Iran, the Strait of Hormuz, American military expenditures, and the administration’s negotiations with the Iranian regime. Booker used his time to argue that the conflict had produced higher prices for Americans while failing to force Iran into surrender.
Booker claimed that the Trump administration had left the United States in a “stalemate” with Iran and was now attempting to return to a nuclear agreement similar to the deal President Barack Obama pursued. He accused Rubio and the administration of strengthening Iran’s bargaining position while Tehran continued using the Strait of Hormuz as leverage. Rubio immediately rejected the senator’s description of the negotiations, telling him, “We’re not begging. There’s no one begging.”
After Booker’s time expired, committee Chairman Jim Risch (R-ID)allowed Rubio to respond because the Democrat had directly addressed him. In the exchange posted online, Rubio said it was Iran, not the United States, that faced growing pressure to reach an agreement. “No one’s begging for anything here. The Iranians might be begging because their economy’s losing hundreds of millions of dollars a day,” Rubio said.
Rubio then described the economic conditions confronting Iran following the conflict. He said the regime had already faced street protests before the war and argued that nearly every economic problem that contributed to those demonstrations had grown substantially worse. “They have hyperinflation. Their currency’s completely devalued. They’re struggling to make payroll for their government workers,” he explained.
The secretary of state said members of Iran’s political class would likely make a deal quickly if the decision rested with them. He added, however, that Iran’s supreme leader and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps remained somewhat insulated from the economic pressure facing the rest of the country. Rubio said that pressure was nevertheless moving Iran toward a point where its leadership could be convinced to change course.
Rubio then directly challenged the crux of Booker’s argument. “I don’t know where you’re getting this perception that Iran is stronger,” he told the senator. “Iran has no navy left. They’ve lost a substantial percentage of their defense industrial base. Iran has lost a substantial percentage of their missile launchers, and their economy is far worse today—and I mean far worse today—than it was six to nine months ago.”
This poll subscribes you to our premium network of content. Unsubscribe at any time.
Rubio added that Iran was facing “hundreds of billions of dollars of reconstruction costs” merely to restore what the country possessed before the conflict. His description presented a sharply different picture from Booker’s claim that Iran had entered the negotiations from a position of increased strength. The Democrat responded by changing the focus to fuel prices and the continued cost of American operations abroad.
“Mr. Rubio, you keep telling us how we’re winning this war,” Booker said, accusing President Donald Trump of repeatedly announcing that Iran had been “obliterated” or “annihilated” while the United States continued spending billions of dollars. Rubio interrupted his question with a straightforward correction. “Well, the war’s over now,” he said.
Politicaldebate analysis
Booker insisted that the war was not over and continued speaking despite having already exceeded his allotted time. Risch stepped in again, telling him, “Senator Booker, you’ve gone way over.” Booker attempted to get in one final complaint about the hearing before Risch ended the exchange: “Thank you, Senator Booker. Senator Scott.”
Trump vs. Murkowski Over the SAVE America Act: What the Fight Is Actually About
President Donald Trump is publicly pressuring Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, after she declined to support the SAVE America Act — a bill that would change how voters register and prove eligibility in federal elections. Trump blames Murkowski for stalling one of his priorities. Murkowski says she agrees with the goal but believes the bill goes too far. The dispute matters because it exposes a split inside the Republican Party over election rules, Senate procedure, and how far to bend for the president’s agenda.
What the bill would do
The SAVE America Act — the name is used by supporters to describe legislation aimed at election security — would set new nationwide rules for federal elections. Two changes stand out:
Proof of citizenship. Anyone registering to vote in a federal election would have to show documentary evidence that they are a U.S. citizen, such as a passport or birth certificate.
Voter identification. The bill would establish identification requirements for casting a ballot.
Supporters argue these steps would strengthen public confidence that only eligible citizens vote. Opponents warn that many lawful citizens do not have a passport or an easy-to-find birth certificate, and could be blocked or delayed even though they are entitled to vote.
Why Murkowski is a holdout
Murkowski says she supports requiring voter identification and agrees that only citizens should vote. Her objection is to the scope of the bill, which she considers too broad.
She points to conditions specific to Alaska to explain her concern:
Isolated communities that are hard to reach and far from government offices.
Limited local government services in some areas.
Residents who may struggle to obtain replacement documents in time for an election.
In her framing, a well-intentioned rule could still keep eligible Alaskans from voting if they cannot quickly produce the required paperwork. Trump’s framing is different: he treats her refusal as blocking a measure needed to protect federal elections.
Why one senator is not the only obstacle
Even if Murkowski changed her position, the bill would still face a steep path. The reason is the math of the Senate.
Republicans hold 53 of the 100 Senate seats.
Most legislation needs 60 votes to overcome a filibuster — a procedural tactic that lets a minority block a bill unless 60 senators agree to move forward.
That means Republicans would need Democratic votes, or a change to the Senate’s rules, to pass the bill on party lines.
Trump has pressed Senate Majority Leader John Thune to keep senators in Washington to force action, and has floated eliminating the filibuster altogether. But several Republican senators oppose changing that rule, wary of the precedent it would set. So the roadblock is bigger than one Alaska senator — it is the 60-vote threshold and internal resistance to removing it.
Why it matters
This is a fight over three things at once:
Election policy — whether new citizenship and ID requirements are the right way to secure federal elections.
Senate procedure — whether Republicans should change long-standing rules to pass legislation without Democratic support.
Party loyalty — how much dissent Trump will tolerate from Republicans who do not back his priorities. His allies have called for voting out any Republican who stands in the way.
May you like
What remains unknown is whether the bill will ever reach a floor vote, whether Murkowski will shift, and whether enough Republicans would agree to weaken the filibuster. None of that is settled.
The practical takeaway
The SAVE America Act is stalled not because of a single senator’s objection, but because it lacks the 60 votes needed to pass and because Republicans disagree about changing the rules to get around that. Trump’s public criticism of Murkowski is the visible part of a larger question the party has not resolved: how to balance tighter election requirements against the risk of burdening eligible voters. Watch for whether Senate leaders bring the bill to a vote — that step will show whether this is a real legislative push or a political pressure campaign.
