18. June 2026
Trump Faces Backlash From Own Party Over Deal With Iran
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s newly announced agreement with Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for significant sanctions relief is facing mounting resistance from Senate Republicans, many of whom argue the arrangement risks rewarding Tehran with billions of dollars while securing few meaningful concessions in return.
The emerging criticism reflects growing unease within the GOP over the outcome of a conflict that lasted more than 100 days and carried a steep price tag in both American lives and taxpayer dollars. Several Republican lawmakers contend that the agreement falls far short of the administration’s stated objectives and could ultimately strengthen a longtime U.S. adversary.
Among the most outspoken critics is Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., who blasted the agreement in a series of social media posts, describing it as one of the most significant foreign policy mistakes in recent memory.
“Ronald Reagan is rolling over in his grave,” Cassidy wrote, characterizing both the conflict and the resulting deal as the “worst foreign policy blunder in decades.”
Cassidy argued that Iran emerged from the confrontation with many of its core capabilities intact while gaining leverage over one of the world’s most strategically important waterways.
“Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curtailed, and they have learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz works and will undoubtedly leverage it again in the future,” he wrote on X. “Now, Iran gets to build brand-new infrastructure under this deal.”
He further criticized the agreement by highlighting the human and economic costs of the conflict.
“Now, 13 Americans are dead, families have paid billions at the pump, sanctions will be lifted, and the bombing has stopped,” Cassidy added.
At the center of Republican concerns is the agreement’s provision to ease sanctions on Iranian oil exports and the possibility that previously frozen Iranian assets could be released. Critics warn that a sudden influx of funds could provide Tehran with resources to rebuild its economy, strengthen its military capabilities and continue supporting proxy groups throughout the Middle East.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, sharply criticized the proposal, arguing that history offers ample warning about providing financial relief to the Iranian government.
“History teaches that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is not a good idea,” Cruz said. “I think the president is receiving some very poor advice on this deal.”
Republican senators who have reviewed portions of the memorandum of understanding say the agreement leaves major questions unanswered regarding Iran’s nuclear activities, missile development and future control of the Strait of Hormuz.
The deal reportedly does not permanently prohibit Iran from imposing transit fees or tolls on vessels moving through the strait, one of the world's most critical energy shipping corridors. Nor does it require Tehran to abandon uranium enrichment, a longstanding U.S. demand.
Lawmakers are also concerned about the strength of Iran’s remaining military capabilities despite months of U.S. and Israeli military operations.
According to a classified CIA assessment cited by The Washington Post, Iran retains roughly 70% of its prewar missile inventory and approximately 75% of its mobile missile launchers, raising questions about the effectiveness of the military campaign in achieving its strategic objectives.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said the absence of major concessions on Iran’s nuclear program, missile arsenal and support for regional militant organizations should concern lawmakers.
He noted that the agreement does not explicitly bar Iran from continuing uranium enrichment or from potentially imposing future fees on maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, he warned, the sanctions relief could provide Tehran with significant financial resources.
“It gives them a lot of money they can use to fund their proxies,” Cornyn said.
Under the current framework, Iran would guarantee free passage through the Strait of Hormuz for 60 days. After that period, negotiations involving Oman would determine the future governance and operational structure of the waterway.
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., questioned whether the costs of the military campaign can be justified by the terms currently on the table.
Calling the agreement weak “on its face,” Tillis argued that policymakers must carefully assess whether the outcome matches the sacrifices made during the conflict.
“You got to do the balance of accounts,” Tillis said. “A hundred billion roughly, maybe more, spent today; 13 dead, 365 wounded, injured; our partners in the Middle East bombed, they’ve had casualties. There’s got to be a lot of return on that.”
Tillis also suggested that the administration has retreated from several of the goals it articulated at the outset of the war.
“We set out by saying we were going to drive down to zero their nuclear capability. Now we’re equivocating on that,” he said. “We said that we were not going to make the mistake that Obama did by sending them a plane full of cash. I got to reconcile the numbers there.”
“There’s a lot of work to be done to convince me that we’re on the right path,” he added.
Despite the criticism, the Trump administration has been actively lobbying Republican lawmakers in an effort to build support for the agreement.
Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, has emerged as one of the deal’s most vocal defenders, arguing that reopening the Strait of Hormuz would provide tangible economic benefits for American consumers by lowering energy prices and reducing costs throughout the broader economy.
“That helps us,” Moreno said. “Yes, of course it helps the Iranians also. It helps us lower energy prices.”
Addressing the Senate on Wednesday evening, Moreno expressed optimism that the memorandum could eventually evolve into a broader agreement that permanently prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
“We’re on the verge of a historic possibility in a world that is not under threat by Iran, where we don’t live in fear of an Iranian regime with a nuclear weapon,” he said.
Yet many Republican skeptics remain unconvinced, particularly because the conflict itself contributed to dramatic volatility in global energy markets.
Before hostilities began, West Texas Intermediate crude traded near $67 per barrel. Prices later surged to approximately $120 before retreating to around $76 on Wednesday following news of the agreement.
Cassidy compared the memorandum to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the nuclear accord negotiated by former President Barack Obama and later abandoned by Trump.
“It’s an awful deal. It’s kind of JCPOA-plus,” Cassidy told The Hill.
Trump withdrew from the Obama-era agreement in 2018, arguing that it enriched the Iranian government while allowing Tehran to preserve key elements of its nuclear infrastructure. At the time, the administration maintained that the deal delayed Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon without fully dismantling its nuclear research and development capabilities.
Cassidy now argues that the new agreement risks repeating those same mistakes.
“This is going to leave Iran stronger, and it’s going to leave our allies weaker, and it may commit U.S. taxpayer dollars,” he said.
Particularly controversial is language in the memorandum stating that the United States will work with regional partners on a reconstruction and economic development framework valued at no less than $300 billion for Iran.
Critics say the provision could ultimately funnel enormous sums into the Iranian economy while failing to address core security concerns.
Cassidy also warned that Tehran’s demonstrated ability to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has fundamentally altered the strategic balance in the region.
“Now, Iran recognizes they can use their leverage over the Strait of Hormuz to extract from the other countries of the world whatever they want,” he said. “And whereas before there was a credible threat that something would happen if they attempted to do so, I think that threat under this president seems to be exhausted.”
Many Senate Republicans also remain deeply skeptical that Iran will negotiate future nuclear restrictions in good faith.
Last month, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., warned that a temporary ceasefire designed to facilitate negotiations could undermine the military gains achieved during the conflict.
“The rumored 60-day ceasefire — with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith — would be a disaster,” Wicker wrote on X. “Everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught.”
Wicker declined to comment publicly on the agreement Wednesday.
Meanwhile, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., one of Trump’s closest allies in Congress, acknowledged the challenges of securing a comprehensive nuclear agreement but argued that diplomacy remains worth pursuing.
“It opens up the strait, it continues the suspension of hostilities, it creates space to see if you can get a deal — I doubt if they can — on the nuclear program, but why not try?” Graham said.
“If you can find a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear ambitions, go for it. The MOU puts that in place,” he added.
As the 60-day negotiation period begins, Republican lawmakers say the administration now faces intense pressure to produce a more comprehensive agreement that delivers measurable gains for the United States and its allies.
“When you say this is on the ledger for Iran, certainly helping them, what we need to look at then is what is the corresponding win for the United States?” Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said.
“I think we actually need to look at the agreement itself. I think we need to have it presented to us with an opportunity for us to ask those questions.”
For now, several Republican senators and senior GOP aides say they have not been informed of any plans to provide the broader Senate with a detailed briefing on the agreement or the administration’s strategy for negotiations with Iran over the next two months, leaving many lawmakers demanding more answers as debate over the deal intensifies.