Follow us on social

2017-09-06t175532z_1995194302_rc1345a148b0_rtrmadp_3_northkorea-missiles-congress-scaled-e1644439849372

One lawmaker's journey from Congress to lobbying for dictators

Former Rep. Ed Royce went from reading Saudi talking points on the House floor to officially doing the Kingdom's bidding.

Analysis | Reporting | Washington Politics

“Iran does want to turn the Houthis into a Yemeni version of Hezbollah, thereby turning Yemen into a second Lebanon, where a militia is constantly holding the government hostage,” argued Representative Ed-Royce (R-Calif.) in an impassioned 2017 speech. Royce was speaking on the House floor in opposition to a bipartisan push in Congress that would have invoked the War Powers Resolution to end U.S. involvement in the war in Yemen.

“The Houthis’ slogan is derived from Iran’s own anti-U.S. slogans,” Royce continued, adding, “Yemen has become another front in Iran’s quest for regional dominance.”

While Royce relayed these and similar arguments for more than 10 minutes, one key fact went unmentioned: he was reading the talking points of Saudi Arabia’s lobbyists, at times verbatim. As first reported by Lee Fang of The Intercept, that morning Royce’s office, and several other congressional offices, received “Facts about the Houthis and Iran” from lobbyists working on the Kingdom’s behalf. Those Saudi lobbyist talking points then formed the basis of a speech from Royce, then Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, at a pivotal juncture in U.S.-Saudi relations. 

Today, Royce is under fire once again for his connections to the Saudi regime, as Democracy for the Arab World, or DAWN, has just released a spotlight, which I provided research for, of the former congressman in its “Lobbyists Hall of Shame,” for his work as a lobbyist on behalf of the Saudi and oppressive Sisi regime in Egypt.

Royce’s path to becoming a lobbyist for dictators was paved while he was still in Congress, and a prime target of Saudi lobbyists. Foreign Agents Registration Act filings analyzed in two previous reports I authored for the Center for International Policy show a pattern of Saudi lobbyists meeting with Royce and his staff during the waning years of his lengthy congressional tenure. This included multiple meetings between Royce and Saudi lobbyists working for Hogan Lovells, the firm that distributed the talking points recited by Royce.

While in Congress, Royce also met, on multiple occasions, with Saudi lobbyists working for the McKeon Group, founded by former Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-Calif.), who had served as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Within two weeks of one meeting between the McKeon Group and Royce, the congressman’s campaign committee received $2,000 from the “Friends of Buck McKeon,” which was filled with leftover money from McKeon’s own campaigns.

This was indicative of a larger pattern established by Royce while in Congress — receiving contributions from the Saudi lobby. In the two years prior to Royce’s 2018 announcement that he would not seek reelection, his campaign committee received at least $16,000 from FARA- registered firms working on behalf of Saudi Arabia. This included $3,500 from Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, Shreck, which would soon be paying Royce much, much more.

The lobbied becomes the lobbyist

When Royce left Congress in early 2019 he did what most former members do — he became a lobbyist. Within two months of leaving government service, Royce was named policy director at BHFS. Though Royce could advise and “consult,” he was technically not a lobbyist, as congressional rules require a one-year “cooling off period” during which former members of Congress are prohibited from lobbying their former colleagues. After Royce’s one-year period was up, however, he wasted no time as he signed up to work first for Liberia, and then for other foreign interests, notably the governments of Egypt and, of course, Saudi Arabia.

The script has been flipped with Royce now playing the role of lobbyist. He has contacted his former colleagues hundreds of times on behalf of these authoritarian regimes and has personally made more than $10,000 in political contributions, principally to to BHFS’s political action committee which has previously, and on multiple occasions, made contributions to members of Congress on the exact same day they or their staff met with BHFS lobbyists representing Saudi Arabia.

DAWN, numerous other organizations, including the Quincy Institute, and more than 5,000 petition signatories are now calling on members of Congress to stop meeting with Royce and other BHFS lobbyists until they cut their ties to the two regimes. Congressional offices refusing to meet with him could also limit Royce’s work for the 27 domestic and international businesses he lobbied on behalf of in 2021, including the defense contractor BAE Systems, COVID-19 vaccine supplier Moderna, China’s tech giant Tencent Holdings, and SalesForce, to name just a few.To be sure, Royce’s post-congressional lobbying career isn’t the exception; it has become the norm. It’s now extraordinarily common for former members of Congress to lobby on behalf of foreign governments. While this phenomenon might be alarming in general, it’s particularly concerning when the lobbying is done on behalf of abusive and aggressive regimes, deepening U.S. involvement in the catastrophic war in Yemen, and entrenching a militarized U.S. Middle East policy that appears increasingly based on multi-billion-dollar arms sales to brutal autocrats. Doing nothing about this revolving door serves only to perpetuate the failed policies of the recent past.


Chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee Ed Royce (R-CA) arrives for a closed classified briefing for members of the House of Representatives on North Korea and Afghanistan on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., September 6, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts
Analysis | Reporting | Washington Politics
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.