Editor's Note: Trump is attempting to find an exit for the Iran conflict through negotiations, but it has first triggered a political backlash within the Republican Party.
Surrounding this yet-to-be-officially-announced deal, hawkish Republicans fear that a ceasefire, sanctions relief, and the unfreezing of assets would give Iran breathing room and even undermine the gains from previous U.S. military actions. For Trump, this is not only a diplomatic negotiation but also an intra-party struggle over policy direction: he must prove his toughness while avoiding further escalation of the war.
More notably, the divisions within the Republican Party over Iran are now intertwining with domestic U.S. electoral pressures. When war, energy, the economy, and Congressional election prospects all become political variables, any foreign agreement is no longer just a diplomatic decision. It is quickly transformed into a test of party loyalty, a show of strength, and voter sentiment. Whether Trump can persuade the hawks to accept diplomatic compromise under the 'America First' narrative will be key to whether this deal materializes.
The following is the original text:
Donald Trump’s weekend attempt to push for a U.S.-Iran deal has sparked a backlash within the Republican Party. Several Republican lawmakers have warned that the president might concede too much in the negotiations.
U.S. negotiators are reportedly close to an agreement. The deal would offer Iran some concessions while extending the existing ceasefire, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and paving the way for further negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program. Following the news, foreign policy hawks including Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz have spoken out.
Over the past week, concerns have mounted that Trump might resume strikes against Iran, accelerating efforts to find a diplomatic solution.
According to people briefed on the proposals, the envisioned deal would include a commitment for Tehran to dilute or transfer its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. In exchange, the U.S. would relax sanctions in phases and unfreeze Iranian assets held abroad, depending on the progress of final agreement talks.
But even before the formal release of the deal’s details, several Republicans, including some of the president’s staunchest supporters, have begun questioning Trump’s negotiating strategy.
"If the region believes that a deal with Iran means allowing this regime to survive and become stronger over time, then we are pouring fuel on the conflicts in Lebanon and Iraq," Graham wrote on social media. Graham has long been a loyal Trump ally and frequently plays golf with the president.
He added: "I personally do not buy the argument that Iran cannot be denied the ability to threaten the Strait of Hormuz, or that the region cannot protect itself from Iranian military capabilities."
Another foreign policy hardliner, Cruz, said he was "deeply concerned" about the reported agreement. He called Trump’s earlier decision to strike Iran first the "most consequential decision" of his second term.
Cruz added: "If this ultimately results in an Iranian regime still controlled by Islamists chanting 'Death to America,' not only receiving billions of dollars but also continuing to enrich uranium, develop nuclear weapons, and effectively control the Strait of Hormuz, then it will be a disastrous mistake."
Senate Armed Services Committee Republican Chairman Roger Wicker posted on X on Saturday: "A rumored 60-day ceasefire deal — banking on Iran negotiating in good faith — would be a disaster. All the gains from Operation Epic Rage would be lost!"
Mike Pompeo, who served as Secretary of State during Trump’s first term, also criticized the plan, saying it is "anything but America First."
Pompeo wrote on X: "It's simple: Open the damn Strait. Cut off Iran's money. Destroy enough Iranian military capability that it can no longer threaten our allies in the region. This should have been done long ago. Get it done."
These criticisms quickly angered the White House.
White House Communications Director Steven Cheung responded sharply to Pompeo’s post, telling the former Secretary of State he "should shut his stupid mouth and leave the real work to the professionals."
Trump campaign adviser Alex Bruesewitz accused Cruz of "trying to sabotage the work of the president and his administration." Cruz later retorted that "young political opportunists pushing appeasement of Iran are not helping the president."
This public clash also exposes the political pressure Trump faces as he tries to unite the Republican Party. The current electoral environment is not easy, with Republicans trying to maintain control of both chambers of Congress while combating unfavorable polls. Multiple polls show Trump’s approval rating has fallen to historic lows, with public dissatisfaction over his handling of the war and the U.S. economy persisting.
North Carolina Republican Senator Thom Tillis has become one of the party's sharpest critics of Trump. On Sunday, he also questioned the deal's rationale in a CNN interview, saying the framework reported in the media "doesn’t make sense."
Tillis said: "About 11 weeks ago, Defense Secretary Hagseath and the Pentagon told us they had destroyed Iran’s defense system and it was just a matter of time before we secured the nuclear materials. Now we are discussing a plan that might accept leaving nuclear materials inside Iran? Where exactly does that make sense?"
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio dismissed the criticism, insisting Trump has taken an unprecedentedly tough stance against Tehran.
Speaking at a joint press conference with India’s foreign minister in New Delhi, Rubio said: "On Iran’s nuclear ambitions, I don’t think anyone has been tougher than President Trump. No one has been more resolute on this issue than President Trump."
He added: "Given what this president has proven he is willing to do, it’s absurd that anyone thinks he would agree to a deal that ultimately leaves Iran in a better position on the nuclear issue."
