U.S. President Donald Trump’s interim deal to end the Iran war met scorching public criticism from some of his fellow Republicans as copies of the signed agreement circulated on Capitol Hill on Thursday.
One Republican senator called the framework pact announced this week the “worst foreign policy blunder in decades,” another said some reported provisions seemed “ill-advised,” and some pro-Republican commentators also broke with Trump over the agreement.
The criticism was a rare rebuke from members of the Republican Party who have mostly offered full loyalty to the president, but are increasingly restive as the economic effects of the Iran conflict have hurt their prospects ahead of midterm elections in November that will decide control of Congress. Democrats, who are seeking to regain control of one or both of the legislative chambers, have also been critical of the agreement.
The White House sent the text of the U.S.-Iran Memorandum of Understanding to members of Congress on Thursday, a day after Trump signed the preliminary deal to end the war. The document, seen by Reuters, matched what had been read out by a U.S. official on Wednesday.
Lawmakers from both parties have said they want more information from the White House.
By Thursday, congressional aides said there had been no briefings for Congress on the deal or the administration’s plans, and there had been no announcement that any were scheduled.
Some of the sharpest criticism of the MOU has involved reports that the Trump administration has agreed to release frozen Iranian assets, allow the creation of a $300 billion private wealth fund to trigger investment in Iran and ease sanctions.
‘BLUNDER’
“Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz works and will undoubtedly leverage it in the future,” Republican Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana wrote in a post on X.
He noted that before the war, the strait — one of the world’s most important oil shipping routes — was open and Iran faced steep sanctions.
“Now, 13 Americans are dead, families have paid billions at the pump, sanctions will be lifted, and the bombing has stopped. This is the worst foreign policy blunder in decades,” Cassidy wrote.
Roger Wicker of Mississippi, the Republican chairman of the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee, said he worried that the MOU “negotiates away” U.S. military successes.
Wicker also said it would be a mistake to force Israel to stand down against Hezbollah in Lebanon and opposed lifting any sanctions on Iran or unfreezing Iranian funds, “in exchange for Iran’s mere agreement to negotiate for another 60 days.”
Trump blasted his critics in a post on social media.
“These fools, who think I haven’t been tough enough on Iran, when the Stock Market Just Hit A RECORD HIGH, and Oil prices are ‘tumbling’ down, are either jealous, bad people, or stupid. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!! President DJT” he wrote.
The agreement to end the conflict and open the economically vital Strait of Hormuz is in some ways a positive for Trump, who has needed a way out of a conflict that has driven up energy prices and sapped U.S. military resources. And the final agreement, still to be negotiated, could provide additional gains for the U.S.
But critics argue that the interim deal offers Iran significant benefits in return for giving the United States two things it had before — an open strait and a promise from Iran to not develop a nuclear weapon.
COMMENTATORS: ‘A DISASTER’
Ben Shapiro, a conservative pundit and podcaster who had previously cheered the U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran, blasted the memorandum of understanding as a “disaster,” but placed the blame on Vice President J.D. Vance. Shapiro said Vance had failed Trump by backing the deal.
“This MOU appears to be, just from the text, a disaster that does not achieve any of the actual signal goals that were set by the administration,” Shapiro told Fox News on Wednesday.
Mark Levin, one of Trump’s most outspoken supporters, has also broken with him over the deal. On Thursday, the conservative Fox News commentator took aim at Republican Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas for suggesting Iran should be allowed to retain ballistic missiles for defensive purposes.
“This man should never be elected dogcatcher,” Levin said of Marshall in a Thursday post on X, calling the administration’s decision not to include ballistic missiles in the agreement an “outrage.”
“To downplay the damage these missiles do (ask the Arab countries what they think about ballistic missiles) and the significance of not including them in any deal is utterly irresponsible,” Levin wrote. “Iran is a terrorist regime that has killed our people, how many more times do we need to be reminded of this.”
Still, many Republicans praised the agreement.
On KCMO Radio, Marshall praised Trump for choosing “a path to lasting peace — not another forever war,” and said there would be controls on how Iran spends the money it receives and that it would not come from U.S. taxpayers.
Lawmakers may eventually review a deal. Under the 2015 Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA), passed after Democratic President Barack Obama’s international Iran nuclear pact, any agreement involving Iran’s nuclear program and the easing of sanctions must be reviewed by Congress.
The Trump administration has given mixed signals about whether he planned to do so, but several lawmakers, including Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a close administration ally, have said it must be sent to Capitol Hill.