Skip to main content

This GOP lawmaker has defied Trump 3 times — but the president doesn’t seem to mind

(CNN) — GOP Rep. Tom Barrett voted for the third time to limit President Donald Trump’s Iran war powers in late July — attempting to help drive a stinging rebuke of the commander-in-chief that can only pass if members of his own party sign on.

But just four days later, Barrett stood at Trump’s side during a rally in his own Michigan battleground district, basking in the president’s endorsement and sending back kind words of his own.

“He’s going to have a tough race. You got to help him,” Trump said as he called the Republican lawmaker onto the stage.

“I’m proud to stand with you today,” Barrett responded.

Republican operatives describe Barrett and Trump’s alliance as a marriage of political convenience: Trump, who rarely gives ground to anyone who defies him, has granted Barrett unusual latitude to chart his own course — even as he seeks to thwart the president’s war with Iran. Trump recognizes that maintaining the GOP’s House majority depends on suburban districts like Barrett’s.

As he works to defend one of the most competitive seats in the country, Barrett is leaning into his military service, even if his position puts him at odds with the president and much of his party. The race will likely come down to how Barrett is able to walk that tightrope between drawing contrasts with the president without alienating his support; a lonely road in Trump’s Republican Party. Barrett flipped the seat from Democratic control in 2024 Trump carried the district in the election.

Barrett, who served 22 years in the Army and deployed to Iraq and Guantánamo Bay, was one of only four Republicans to vote against the Trump administration’s authorization of military operations in Iran. After the conflict crossed the 60-day threshold requiring congressional approval under the War Powers Resolution, Barrett became the only Republican to introduce a measure authorizing the use of military force in Iran while limiting the scope of military action and setting a firm deadline for ending the conflict.

When Barrett cast his votes to restrict Trump’s war powers in Iran, he’s thinking about his friend who died in Iraq and is buried in Arlington National Cemetery three miles away.

“That weighs heavily on me. And those effects of war weigh heavily on me. I’ve got a lot of friends who didn’t come home. I got a lot of friends who struggled after they came home,” Barrett told CNN.

When asked what his message is for a president who believes Congress does not have a role to play in authorizing the ongoing war with Iran Barrett sidestepped, “You can ask the president that question.”

With Barrett in the audience during Trump’s speech on Monday in Michigan, the president defended his approach to the war.

“When somebody comes up and says, ‘Why are we doing this,’ Just say, ‘Because we cannot let them have a nuclear weapon.’ It’s very simple,” Trump said.

Yet for the Michigan Republican, pushing for Congress to assert itself in how to handle the war is not political, and he doesn’t feel pressured to change his vote.

“This is a vote of conscience for me,” Barrett said.

The calculus Barrett is making — of rebuking Trump over Iran while also finding ways to work with president — is a strategy that GOP operatives believe will work to their advantage. GOP operatives say that Barrett addressing the Iran war head on neutralizes the potential attack from his Democratic opponents as the public has soured on the war effort.

“I think this is really good for him to show that he’s bipartisan and can push back on the things that are really important for him in his district,” one GOP operative told CNN. “I think it’s actually kind of a breath of fresh air for voters.”

Another GOP operative pointed out that Barrett has a helicopter to signal his military experience on all of his campaign branding and added, “He is known as a military guy, and I think that context on this issue means he can speak as a voice of authority, and it comes off as a genuine reaction of him doing what he thinks is best for the military, the country.”

This strategy is in part to consider the vote of Barrett’s constituents like Jason Peterson, who served with him and is a member of his veterans’ advisory group. Peterson views the conflict as needless but says the congressman has shared how difficult it is to build support in the Republican Party for the War Powers vote.

“The conflict should not have even started. I question it myself. I’ve been in uniform and served my country for over 20 years,” Peterson said. “Servicemembers that are in Iran right now or about to be, are being placed in harm’s way for ulterior motives. There have been little answers, in my opinion, in terms of the why.”

Peterson was part of a group of veterans organized by Barrett to meet with Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins, giving participants an opportunity to ask questions and explore how to improve the agency.

His district, which represents Michigan’s state capital of Lansing, has a history of representatives who lean into their service experience. Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin, who represented the district for six years, was a former CIA analyst who served three tours in Iraq. And two of Barrett’s top Democratic opponents come from military backgrounds. Matt Maasdam was a Navy SEAL who deployed throughout the Middle East and the Pacific and Bridget Brink was a US foreign service officer who served under five presidents from both parties.

Maasdam, who was former President Barack Obama’s military aide responsible for carrying the nuclear codes, thinks Barrett is pivoting too little, too late, as it took him months before he joined a handful of his colleagues in voting to restrict Trump’s war powers.

“Barrett knows better. He was in the military. He knows what it means when he gave Trump a blank check the first two times to go to war,” Maasdam said. “He’s doing what he’s doing for political reasons, not because he actually believes it.”

And Maasdam plans to tie Barrett to Trump if he wins the Democratic nomination on Tuesday even if Barrett has tried to stake out his own position on the Iran war.

“Him being out there with Trump fires up Democrats a lot,” Maasdam said.

But Barrett is steadfast in carving out a middle ground, even if he must go it alone in part because he knows his constituents have split views on the war effort.

“People are divided for sure,” he said.

Barrett is betting voters will see his break with Trump not as disloyalty, but as conviction rooted in his military service. In a district where both Trump and Barrett won two years ago, his political future may depend on whether voters believe he can stand with the president — and still stand up to him.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

Doctor convicted of attempted manslaughter of his wife wants a new trial, saying jurors may have been confused

(CNN) — Along the steep Pali Puka trail last spring, the verdant beauty of Oahu spilled out to the Pacific Ocean from the scenic path where Gerhardt and Arielle Konig stood. On that high ridge, they fought for their lives – emotionally, then physically – each later would testify.A trip intended to celebrate Arielle’s birthday – and maybe salvage their troubled marriage – ended with the couple, who share two young children, on the ground attacking each other. He bashed her in the face with a rock. She bit him and squeezed his testicles.Who started the melee became the question at the heart of an attempted second-degree murder charge filed against Gerhardt Konig.Prosecutors said the defendant wanted to kill his spouse and tried to push her off the cliff. But after an emotional, 10-day trial a year later that saw husband, wife and one of Gerhardt Konig’s children from a prior marriage on the stand, the jury found him guilty of the lesser charge of attempted manslaughter.At Konig’s request, a judge on Friday heard arguments on whether a new jury should hear the case because of what two jurors in news interviews revealed soon after issuing the verdict that could send Konig to prison for up to 20 years, along with concern one juror may have communicated about the case outside the jury room during deliberations.“Jury irregularities call into serious question the integrity of this verdict,” defense attorney Thomas Otake wrote in an appeal filed in May.At Friday’s hearing, Judge Paul Wong said the court would question jurors about any outside communications during deliberations before deciding whether to grant a new trial. The court will revisit the matter on September 11.“The court must ascertain the extent of the influence,” Wong said.Whether defendant intended to kill is at issueFinding insufficient evidence to convict Konig of attempted murder, the jury found him guilty of attempted manslaughter, with his actions – even if extremely dangerous – motivated by “extreme mental or emotional disturbance.”Ruling out an attempted murder charge was a relief to Konig’s legal team and left open the possibility Konig could be sentenced to probation, with no jail time at all.“We are thankful that they did not convict him of attempted murder, which would have been life in prison,” Otake told reporters shortly after the verdict was announced.Still, the defense attorney immediately promised an appeal based on unspecified concerns about the judge’s rulings during the trial. When his motion dropped a month later, however, it wasn’t the judge Otake took issue with:The request for a new trial was based on what jurors said after the verdict.“Somebody was definitely hurt; it was a bodily injury to the head that could result in serious bodily injury,” foreperson Makalapua Atkins told CNN affiliate East Idaho News about jurors’ state of mind in deliberations.“The intent to kill is improbable to us based on the evidence presented,” Atkins said in an interview after the verdict with True Crime AZ, adding, “The only people who know what happened on that cliff are the two that were involved.”But under Hawaii law, Konig’s defense team has argued, even a conviction for attempted manslaughter would require the jury to find the defendant was trying to kill the victim – and the foreperson said they didn’t.“The jury did not unanimously believe that Dr. Konig had an intent to kill his wife,” Atkins confirmed in a sworn statement to the defense attorney accompanying his appeal. Prosecutors also asked Atkins to sit down with them for an interview, but she declined, their response to the request for appeal states. CNN could not reach Atkins for comment.Another juror, identified publicly only as Juror #3, also said he had not been convinced Gerhardt Konig intended to take Arielle’s life that day.“I don’t know if he was trying to kill his wife, personally,” he told Honolulu TV station KHON in an on-camera interview. “I do know that it was the capacity to kill his wife, personally. That how I felt about it.”If jurors didn’t understand what was required for conviction, Konig’s attorneys argued, it opens the door to a new trial.“Conduct that could result in death or has the capacity to kill may be reckless, but it is not necessarily intentional, and Hawaiʻi does not recognize attempted reckless manslaughter,” Konig’s defense attorneys said, with the emphasis, in a court filing.Did the jury understand the law?“The jurors’ public remarks raise a serious concern that the verdict may rest upon findings inconsistent with the convicted offense,” Konig’s defense attorneys said in a motion for a new trial.The judge’s instructions – 33 in all – were a lot to digest. They laid out a menu of five possible charges – from second-degree attempted murder to third-degree assault – explaining the order in which they had to be considered and steps to evaluating each.“If and only if you unanimously find that all the elements of Attempted Murder in the Second Degree have been proven by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt, and you unanimously find that the defendant was not acting in Self-Defense, then you must consider the affirmative defense of Extreme Mental or Emotional Disturbance,” one instruction states.In their response to Konig’s request for a new trial, prosecutors did not try to rebut the claim jurors were confused, instead saying it doesn’t matter. The “internal thought process” of the jury, even when revealed voluntarily by jurors, should not be reconsidered by the court after a verdict, prosecutor Joel Garner stated.“Jurors can change their mind, but what matters is whether the verdict was unanimous at the time it was rendered,” the prosecution wrote. “In this case it was, even according to the on-the-record statements of the foreperson – and therefore a later declaration disagreeing with the verdicts is not a sufficient basis to grant a motion for a new trial.”Juror may have revealed their discussions during deliberationKonig’s defense also raises another concern about the jury: that one member may have been communicating about the case to an outsider while deliberations were still underway.“I’ve been texting with one of the juror’s (sic) and they’re going for count 3 attempted manslaughter,” says a message posted to the live chat of trial coverage by the Law&Crime Network.The comment was first spotted by someone – whose name is redacted in the court filing – and emailed to prosecutors, who alerted the judge.“What caught my attention is that this commenter specifically predicted the verdict – that Konig would be convicted of attempted manslaughter – before it was announced,” the person wrote in the email.Whether it was legitimate or a hoax has not been proven, but Konig’s defense attorneys say the fact that it correctly foreshadowed the verdict should give it credibility.“Although the full scope of any such communication remains unknown, these circumstances raise substantial concerns regarding the jury’s exposure to outside influence or extraneous information during deliberations,” the defense team wrote.Prosecutors say even if the comment was authentic, it doesn’t require a new trial unless there is proof that “external influence” swayed the decision of the juror.“A juror disclosing where the jury stands is certainly problematic, but on its own it does not indicate that the other party influenced that juror in any way,” Garner said in their court filing.Could a new trial backfire?If Konig, who is in jail pending his sentencing, is granted a new trial, it could come with a big risk: He could face the attempted murder charge again after beating it in his first trial.Otake is trying to make sure that doesn’t happen.“The jury did not convict Dr. Konig of attempted murder in the second degree,” the defense lawyer wrote, arguing the conviction on the lesser charge amounts to an attempted murder acquittal since the jury could not convict Konig of both.“Any retrial must therefore be limited to offenses consistent with the jury’s verdict and the constitutional protections against double jeopardy,” Otake added.The Department of the Prosecuting Attorney in Honolulu has not said whether it would try to pursue an attempted murder conviction again if a retrial is ordered.Either way, the legal fight between Gerhardt and Arielle Konig will continue, as their divorce is still pending.“The marriage,” Arielle Konig wrote in her divorce petition, “is irretrievably broken.”The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story