A flashing red light flashes in Congress that could leave the Republican Party in a confusing, multi-year limbo
When top Republicans on Capitol Hill learned the details of US President Donald Trump’s deal with Iran, some were so surprised that they simply refused to talk about it.
But in less than 24 hours, a significant bloc of Republican senators began openly questioning the terms of Trump’s negotiations with Iran — many urging him to completely change his strategy.
Some, particularly those without pressure from re-election campaigns, are harshly criticizing Trump’s deal. Outgoing Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana summed up the situation this Thursday as follows: “Iran came out stronger, we came out weaker.” Senator John Cornyn of Texas, who is also leaving Congress, said this: “Everything I’ve heard worries me.”
“It’s hard to say that the deal leaves Iran worse off and the United States better off,” admitted Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, later adding, “A lot of money was spent, some lives were lost, and yet Iran is in a situation that looks pretty much the same as before.”
But the most significant Republican voices are those who have rarely, if ever, strayed from Trump’s party line.
The growing chorus of Republican angst represents a flashing red warning sign for Trump: Without significant changes, any final Iran deal may not survive an eventual vote — even in a Republican-controlled Congress. Some doubt a final deal will be reached, leaving Trump and the Republican Party in a confusing limbo that could last years and cost the party dearly in November.
There is “a high level of consternation” in the Republican Senate, according to a party official, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about the dynamics. The senator was also pessimistic about the prospects for a final agreement, stating that they considered it unlikely that Iran would actually agree to a definitive agreement.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune initially had little comment on the president’s deal, telling reporters that he was still “analyzing” the details and later adding that he wanted to “ensure that financial incentives are conditional on Iran’s performance,” particularly regarding its nuclear weapons. Later the same day, he called it “a step in the right direction”, but stressed that he saw it as a first step.
All of this signals an erosion of support across the party, even among the president’s allies, in one of the most difficult periods of Trump’s presidency, with growing Republican angst over his ballroom renovation project, his retaliation campaign and, most recently, the dispute over the head of intelligence services. And that could complicate the White House’s efforts to accomplish much more before the midterm elections — including the looming battle over a costly bill to fund war operations against Iran, which Republican leaders hope to pass this summer.
One such emerging dissenting voice is that of Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi, the top Republican on the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee. Wicker declined to comment on the deal for an entire day after the White House revealed key details of the deal. This Thursday, Wicker, who has worked in Congress for three decades, released a scathing statement criticizing much of the agreement, particularly the $300 billion reconstruction fund and the decision to lift sanctions.
“I am concerned that the memorandum of understanding trades off the victories of Operation Epic Fury in ways that are completely at odds with the president’s goals,” Wicker wrote in the statement. The official also said that Trump’s plan for a $300 billion fund would make the advantages granted to Iran in a previous agreement with then-president Barack Obama “appear insignificant in comparison” – referring to the 2015 agreement, which he once considered so bad that it was reminiscent of the failed Munich agreements of 1938, which aimed to stop Adolf Hitler.
When speaking to reporters about Trump’s emerging deal, Wicker was so cautious about his public message that he refused to answer further questions, handing out copies of his statement to reporters. But Wicker wasn’t the only one to harshly criticize Trump’s negotiations.
Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a staunch supporter of a hard line against Iran, attacked Trump’s insistence on approving the $300 billion reconstruction fund, freeing frozen assets and allowing Iran to potentially profit from reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
“History shows that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to kill us is an exceptionally bad idea, and I think, unfortunately, the president is getting very bad advice on this deal,” Cruz said. “If we give billions of dollars to Iran, that money will be used to kill Americans, and so I don’t believe we should do that.”
Another senator with a tough view on Iran, Joni Ernst of Iowa, who will retire at the end of her term, was unusually critical in her assessment.
“I think a lot of us really want to fully understand what the government is thinking, where they want to take it,” he told reporters. When asked about the 300 billion dollar fund, she said the following: “I need to know where this money is coming from, because I don’t think my voters will be very happy if…”
“All of this is American taxpayer money.”
As the White House scrambled to sell the deal, many senators said they were awaiting a detailed briefing from the administration. On Thursday afternoon, the White House held its first conference call with members of Congress to discuss the details, briefing congressional leadership and top deputies on the Senate and House Foreign Relations Committees, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Also this Thursday, Vice President JD Vance downplayed the importance of the negative reaction coming from Capitol Hill.
“I would say to anyone, any of the critics: First, have a little faith in the president of the United States. The idea that he’s going to cut a deal that’s bad for the American people is absurd,” Vance said during a White House press conference, later adding: “I don’t think our public communication has been chaotic.”
Some high-ranking Republicans, such as South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, have personally contacted some of Trump’s negotiators.
But skeptical allies noted in particular the absence of Secretary of State Marco Rubio from publicly promoting the deal – a staunch critic of Iran and widely respected by Republicans in Washington.
“Making J.D. Vance the speaker instead of Marco Rubio will not increase Republicans’ confidence that this is a good deal,” said a former senior Trump administration official, echoing lawmakers’ private concerns that the administration was easing pressure on Iran just when it should be maximizing it. “The Iranians are not going to do anything at all, we are going to give them a lot of money, they are not going to give anything else after that and you will be accused of getting a bad deal.”
Inside the White House, officials lamented that the US commitment to Iran and other mediator countries not to publish the text of the agreement until Friday was now hampering their ability to manage its implementation. Trump and several other senior officials, including Rubio, were also abroad at the G7 summit, limiting their ability to communicate the pact’s merits to U.S. lawmakers and allies.
Vance, who already had interviews scheduled with several media outlets about his new book, took on the role of chief spokesman, promoting the deal as a win-win situation that could transform the U.S. relationship with Iran — or, at worst, ensure that the country’s nuclear capabilities were decimated.
But he could only provide the main points of the agreement. And without a hard copy to share, Trump’s allies and Republican lawmakers mostly refused to immediately endorse him — creating a vacuum that was quickly filled by vocal skeptics and a flood of contradictory information.
“We’re all pretending we know what’s written on it,” said a Trump ally. One adviser said this week, amid growing frustration in the Republican Party, “I don’t know what’s in it.”
Amid increasing scrutiny, Trump administration officials on Wednesday resorted to a creative strategy to get around their agreement not to release the text: They read it aloud to journalists on a conference call, allowing media outlets to publish the agreement in full.
Meanwhile, White House officials tried throughout the week to calm the anxiety of Republican congressmen, hoping to convince them not to speak out publicly.
Graham’s support for the pact, following a conversation with Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff – which came after the Iran critic’s initial tepid reaction – was seen by Trump administration officials as a particularly important victory. (Days earlier, Graham had told journalists he was “skeptical” Iran would abandon its nuclear ambitions by the end of negotiations.)
But even Graham acknowledged on Thursday that “some of the criticism of [memorando de entendimento] are valid.”
Few Republican lawmakers have been willing to offer unqualified support for the deal – a reluctance that has fueled Trump’s anger at unfavorable press coverage in recent days.
“These fools, who think I haven’t been tough enough on Iran, when the Stock Market has just reached a record and oil prices are plummeting, are envious, bad people or stupid,” Trump posted on his Truth Social at 4:32 am (Eastern Time) this Thursday, when it was already morning in Portugal.
About five hours later, he continued: “OUR COUNTRY IS STRONG, SAFE AND RESPECTED AS EVER. ‘YOU’RE WELCOME!’”
CNN’s Annie Grayer contributed to this report
