The Dispute Index

Pete Stauber

Portrait of Pete Stauber
Nate Payne / House Creative ServicesSourcePublic domain (U.S. federal government)Existing portrait crop retained; resized only.

United States Representative and Republican candidate for U.S. House in Minnesota's 8th district.

Republican candidate for U.S. House in Minnesota's 8th Congressional District
X (Twitter) (opens in a new tab)Instagram (opens in a new tab)Facebook (opens in a new tab)

What we have documented

We have documented 3 statements by Pete Stauber, in 2 cases. Each statement below gives the quotation, its original source and a link to the full case.

Case updates

Hear if a candidate's Iran war stance changes

Get an email if Congress votes again on war powers, or if a member of Congress or a candidate takes a new public position on the Iran war.

Important updates only. Free. Confirm your email to start. Unsubscribe anytime. How we handle your email.

Statements by Pete Stauber

Portrait of Pete Stauber

Pete Stauber

Role at the time: U.S. Representative from Minnesota’s 8th District, posting on his X account

Defended or excused

Statement summary

In a post on his X account, Rep. Pete Stauber said Peggy Flanagan “was a key player in allowing fraudsters to steal billions of dollars from taxpayers during the Walz-Flanagan administration”, and that Minnesotans “are recognizing we can’t afford more of the same under her failed career”.

“Peggy Flanagan was a key player in allowing fraudsters to steal billions of dollars from taxpayers during the Walz-Flanagan administration. Minnesotans are recognizing we can’t afford more of the same under her failed career!”
Read the original post (opens in a new tab)Pete Stauber (@PeteStauber) on X: “Peggy Flanagan was a key player in allowing fraudsters to steal billions of dollars”Full X post, published September 20, 2026 at 3:05 p.m. EDT (19:05 UTC).
Why we used this label

Stauber makes a parallel accusation to Tafoya’s charge that Flanagan hid from and allowed Minnesota’s fraud, saying in his own words that Flanagan “was a key player in allowing fraudsters to steal billions of dollars”. That defends and amplifies the charge rather than merely reporting it. The closest competing label is “Mixed or conditional”; it loses because Stauber states the charge without qualification.

Read statementFull case: Michele Tafoya’s accusation that Peggy Flanagan is “hiding from” Minnesota’s welfare-fraud scandal
Portrait of Pete Stauber

Pete Stauber

Role at the time: U.S. Representative, Minnesota 8th district

Defended or excused

Statement summary

Pete Stauber voted Nay on H.Con.Res. 93, the House resolution directing the President to remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.

“On Agreeing to the Resolution: Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.”
Read the official statement (opens in a new tab)U.S. House Roll Call Vote 307: H.Con.Res. 93, Iran War Powers Resolution (agreed to, 220-204)
Why we used this label

A nay vote opposed the resolution directing the removal of U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran, allowing U.S. military operations in the war to continue.

Read statementFull case: Do they support the war in Iran?
Portrait of Pete Stauber

Pete Stauber

Role at the time: U.S. Representative for Minnesota at the statement date.

Defended or excused

Statement summary

Stauber defends Operation Epic Fury as a necessary opportunity to remove Iran’s threat and free its people from an oppressive regime.

“Now, the time has come to free the world from this threat and free the Iranian people from this oppressive regime.”
Read the original post (opens in a new tab)Stauber defends Operation Epic Fury as ending an Iranian threatComplete original @RepPeteStauber written post, February 28, 2026, 9:33 AM displayed
Why we used this label

Relative to U.S. military involvement in the 2026 Iran war, Stauber defends Operation Epic Fury as a necessary opportunity to remove Iran’s threat and free its people from an oppressive regime.

Read statementFull case: Do they support the war in Iran?

A participant is a subject of the case. A speaker has a statement documented in it. A commentator has an opinion or editorial documented in it.

Case

Do they support the war in Iran?

Relationship to this case: Speaker

An issue tracker recording where members of Congress and 2026 midterm candidates stand on the unauthorized Iran war, based on their votes on war-powers resolutions, campaign statements, and public remarks.

Iran WarU.S. PoliticsUpdated

Topics in this coverage