President Donald Trump is promoting a proposed agreement aimed at bringing an end to the months-long conflict with Iran — a development that could help ease some of the political pressure facing Republicans.
However, Republican lawmakers remain cautious, with many still seeking clarity on key aspects of the proposed deal.
With no official text of the reported “memorandum of understanding” — which Vice President JD Vance was said to have signed with Iranian representatives on Sunday — lawmakers on Capitol Hill were left with limited details, prompting senators from both parties to raise concerns and question what the agreement actually contains.
Many Republican lawmakers also acknowledged that Congress should be briefed on the agreement as soon as possible, maintaining that any arrangement concerning Iran’s nuclear programme must eventually go through legislative review and receive congressional approval.
“If you want a deal to last, it can’t be an executive agreement,” said Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.). “We’ve got to have a vote of Congress to be able to solidify [it] long term.”
The intense bipartisan scrutiny surrounding the long-discussed agreement reflects the legacy of the Iran nuclear deal reached over a decade ago under then-President Barack Obama, which sparked cross-party backlash over the exchange of sanctions relief and financial concessions for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear programme.
Trump exited the agreement during his first term, but he has now returned with a new deal that — depending on the final wording and ongoing negotiations — could closely resemble the Obama-era arrangement. This development has sparked criticism from both sides, including defence hawks who strongly opposed the original Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and Democrats who argue that Trump should never have abandoned it in the first place.
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a prominent defence hawk, told reporters he is “pulling for a deal,” while also pointing to what he described as significant inconsistencies in the terms that have been made public so far.
“The MOU being described by us sounds really very good; the MOU being described by Iran sounds awful,” Graham said.
“If they can enrich [uranium] anywhere at all, then it’s the same as JCPOA. If they can’t enrich, then that makes it a good deal,” he continued, adding in a separate conversation that he was “skeptical that Iran will ever go there” to cease enrichment.
Officials in the Trump administration have said that the memorandum of understanding is expected to be published by Friday at the latest.
The prospect of congressional voting on the agreement also traces back to the 2015 nuclear deal. At the time, amid widespread bipartisan unease over the Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran, the Republican-controlled House and Senate passed a law that granted Congress the authority to review any deal related to Iran’s nuclear programme.
However, that legislation does not mandate congressional approval of any agreement. Instead, it allows lawmakers to reject a deal through a resolution of disapproval, which the president can then veto. As a result, both chambers would need a two-thirds majority to override the president and block the agreement — a threshold Congress fell far short of reaching in 2015.
On Monday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune said there is “probably some expectation” that the Senate will eventually vote on the agreement, while declining to address its specific details.
“I don’t have enough information on it at this stage, and I don’t think even those who track these issues closely here in Congress know very much about it,” he said, noting that he anticipated Vice President Vance or other administration officials would brief lawmakers on the deal at a later time.
The absence of clear details was typical of Capitol Hill on Monday, as several senators voiced frustration that the full text of the signed agreement had still not been made available.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) told reporters, “If it’s a secret deal, then how am I supposed to take it seriously?”
The reported deal is said to involve reopening the Strait of Hormuz for commercial shipping, but it is still unclear how far Iran would be expected to scale back its nuclear programme. Vice President Vance has said in multiple interviews that the administration is focused on ensuring Iran does not obtain or build a nuclear weapon, although he did not provide details on issues such as civilian nuclear infrastructure or uranium enrichment.
On Monday, the White House circulated briefing notes to Republican lawmakers outlining the deal, including claims that “Iran will never have a nuclear weapon” and that “energy prices … are coming down,” according to a document reviewed by POLITICO. The administration also maintained in the memo that the agreement is an improvement on the Obama-era nuclear deal.
With limited information available, senators largely converged on the view that they should be given an opportunity to examine the agreement and vote on it, even as certain Republicans warned that the administration could seek to bypass congressional approval.
“I don’t expect that to happen,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said about a vote. “They’ll try to write it around the treaty requirements, so I don’t expect we’ll vote on it.”
Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota said the administration should present the agreement to Congress, noting that this would help ensure it is not viewed as a political deal like the JCPOA was.
Many Republicans in Congress have been hoping President Trump secures an exit from the nearly four-month conflict, which has contributed to rising energy costs ahead of the November elections. Speaking on Monday, Thune said he believes a deal would “have a very positive impact on the economic situation in the country and that obviously will translate into the political situation in the country.”
Several of Trump’s strongest supporters in Congress publicly welcomed and commended the agreement on Monday.
