Representative Michael McCaul of Texas, a stalwart among the Republican Party’s foreign affairs hawks, announced his retirement on Sunday, September 14, 2025, sending ripples through Washington and beyond. But it wasn’t just the end of a congressional career that made headlines—it was McCaul’s dire warning that, with Russia’s recent escalation in Ukraine and a string of alarming military incidents, the world is teetering dangerously close to a global conflict.
McCaul’s remarks came during an interview with ABC News, where he reflected on a week marked by heightened tensions between NATO and Russia. Just days earlier, Russian drones had entered Polish airspace, prompting NATO to scramble jets in response. The incident, which Russia dismissed as an error, was viewed far more gravely by Poland and several other European countries, who insisted the intrusion was deliberate. President Donald Trump, for his part, offered a more cautious assessment, suggesting it “could have been a mistake.”
For McCaul, however, the episode was a wake-up call. “We’ve never seen anything like this in recent times,” he told ABC News. “And so, what I’m concerned about is that the escalation here and the temperature rising, we got to be very careful not to be on the precipice of a World War III.” His words echoed the anxiety felt across European capitals, where leaders have grown increasingly wary of Russia’s unpredictable maneuvers and the potential for miscalculation to spiral into open conflict.
As a former anti-terrorism prosecutor and past chairman of both the House Homeland Security and Foreign Affairs committees, McCaul, 63, has long been one of the sharpest voices in Congress on matters of national security. He is part of an older generation of foreign policy hawks who have sought to maintain robust American engagement abroad, at times clashing with a younger, more skeptical wing of the GOP that questions the wisdom—and cost—of U.S. interventions overseas.
McCaul’s retirement comes at a time when the Republican Party’s approach to foreign policy, especially regarding Russia and Ukraine, is in flux. Over the years, he has been a persistent advocate for a tougher U.S. stance toward Moscow, repeatedly urging President Trump to recognize the threat posed by Russian President Vladimir Putin. “I think he’s manipulating the president as a KGB officer would,” McCaul said, referencing Putin’s past in Soviet intelligence. “The more Putin irritates the president, I think the better we are in terms of defending NATO and Ukraine.”
It’s no secret that Trump’s relationship with Putin has been complicated. The former president has, at various times, praised the Russian leader, even as he moved to cut off military aid to Ukraine. Yet, under mounting pressure from both allies and adversaries, Trump recently reversed course and supported a new increase in assistance to Kyiv. Last month, in a move that surprised many, Trump invited Putin to Alaska for discussions about a possible ceasefire in Ukraine. So far, Putin has not committed to attending, and the prospects for meaningful negotiations remain uncertain.
McCaul, for his part, believes Trump is beginning to wake up to the reality that Putin “is not negotiating in good faith.” Still, the congressman’s departure leaves a gap in the ranks of those pressing for a firm response to Russian aggression. “I’m looking for a new challenge in the same space that would be national security, foreign policy, but just in a different realm,” McCaul said, signaling his intention to remain engaged on these issues even as he steps away from elected office.
His exit is part of a broader exodus from the House of Representatives. At least ten members, including fellow GOP hawk Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska—who has grown increasingly critical of Trump’s handling of the Russia-Ukraine crisis—are leaving the chamber without seeking higher office. This generational turnover is reshaping the Republican Party’s approach to foreign policy, with some younger lawmakers questioning the value of America’s commitments abroad and advocating for a more restrained posture.
Yet the stakes could hardly be higher. The drone incursion into Poland, a NATO member, underscored the ever-present risk that the war in Ukraine could spill across borders and trigger the alliance’s mutual defense commitments. While Russia’s official line is that the drone’s entry was accidental, skepticism abounds among European officials. Poland and its neighbors have made clear they view the act as a provocation—one that could have had disastrous consequences if not for the swift response of NATO forces.
President Trump’s own statements reflect the ambiguity and uncertainty that now define U.S. policy toward Russia. Saying the drone incident “could have been a mistake,” he has sought to balance calls for restraint with the need to reassure allies. But critics, including McCaul, argue that such equivocation sends mixed signals to both friends and foes. For McCaul and others in his camp, the lesson is clear: the U.S. must project strength and resolve in the face of Russian aggression, lest missteps lead to catastrophe.
McCaul’s career has been defined by his commitment to national security, from his early days as an anti-terrorism prosecutor to his leadership roles in Congress. His efforts to counter both external threats and internal divisions within his own party have earned him respect—and, at times, criticism—from across the political spectrum. As he prepares to leave Capitol Hill, McCaul is candid about the challenges ahead. The world, he warns, is entering a period of heightened danger, with old certainties eroding and new risks emerging on multiple fronts.
His departure also raises questions about who will fill the vacuum left by the older generation of foreign policy hawks. With figures like Don Bacon also stepping down, the Republican Party may find itself at a crossroads, forced to reconcile its competing impulses toward engagement and isolation. The outcome of this debate will shape not only America’s response to Russia and Ukraine but also its broader role on the world stage.
For now, McCaul says he intends to finish his term and then seek out new opportunities in national security and foreign policy. “I’m looking for a new challenge in the same space that would be national security, foreign policy, but just in a different realm,” he reiterated, leaving the door open to future contributions outside Congress.
As the world watches events in Ukraine and Eastern Europe with increasing anxiety, McCaul’s warning—that the U.S. and its allies must tread carefully to avoid the precipice of World War III—rings with a gravity that few can ignore. The next chapter, both for American foreign policy and for McCaul himself, remains unwritten. But the urgency of the moment, and the risks it entails, could not be clearer.
