President Donald Trump’s interim deal with Iran has prompted criticism not only from political opponents but also from many of his own 2024 voters, who said the agreement fell short of their expectations and raised doubts about its durability. In interviews with 18 people who backed Trump in 2024 — a group Reuters has been speaking with monthly since his return to office — a majority expressed reservations about the truce and its broader implications.
The memorandum of understanding, unveiled on June 14, included several major elements: the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a temporary lifting of U.S. oil sanctions on Iran and authorization of a $300 billion fund to assist in reconstruction. According to the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll cited in the interviews, only one-quarter of Americans judged the war with Iran worth its costs, and most respondents said they doubted the ceasefire would endure.
Many of the Trump voters interviewed had supported U.S. strikes early in the conflict, seeing them as necessary to degrade long-range missile inventories and hinder Iran’s nuclear program. But nearly four months into the confrontation, and with signs that Iranian political and military capabilities remained largely intact, 14 of the 18 voters criticized parts of the June memorandum.
Common complaints centered on two themes: distrust of Tehran’s commitment to any agreement and discomfort with the idea of channeling large sums to rebuild Iran. The proposed $300 billion reconstruction vehicle is described in the agreement as a private investment fund rather than a government-run program, though interviewees noted that many details have yet to be disclosed.
“We need to truly weaken the Iranian regime instead of this, ‘beat them up a little bit and then step back and let them rebuild’,” said Terry Alberta, 65, a pilot in Michigan, reflecting a view shared by several others that the agreement represented too much leniency toward Iran.
Juan Rivera, 26, put his disappointment in political terms, saying Trump had previously criticized predecessors for negotiating with terrorists but had adopted what Rivera described as similar tactics. Rivera, who still plans to support mostly Republican candidates, said his canvassing among Latino voters near San Diego revealed a notable level of demobilization: many Trump supporters he spoke with were disillusioned by the president’s handling of the war and other issues, and felt less motivated to vote for his party this November.
Some interviewees connected the conflict to the U.S. domestic economy. Steve Egan, 65, a promotional product distributor in Tampa, said he soured on Trump in early 2025 after tariff-induced price increases hurt his business. Egan was skeptical of the rationale for the war from the start and said the campaign had driven up gasoline and other prices without achieving the stated aim of regime change. He described Trump’s endorsement as “the kiss of death” for candidates in his voting decisions going into the midterms.
Other voters voiced different concerns. Brandon Neumeister, 37, a Pennsylvania state corrections worker and former National Guardsman, said the conflict appeared to have benefited oil companies. Neumeister also said he was unlikely to vote in November due to a broader disgust with politics. Robert Billups, 35, of Washington state, said he thought the truce might hold but believed the war had increased anti-American sentiment rather than improving U.S. security. Billups added that Vice President JD Vance, who led U.S. negotiations with Iran, had fallen in his esteem and that he would choose candidates based on their strategy rather than party label in November.
Despite widespread critique, a subset of the voters interviewed - six of them - remained convinced that Trump either had or would pursue more forceful measures against Iran. Kate Mottl, 63, a municipal secretary in the Chicago suburbs, said she considered the destruction of Tehran’s regime the only reliable way to prevent future conflict and described it as “very disappointing” if the president stopped short of further military action. Rich Somora, 62, an engineer in North Carolina, similarly expressed belief that Trump likely had a “bigger plan” and could still find a way to remove Iran’s clerical leadership.
That hope for further action runs against assessments from diplomats and analysts referenced by the interviewees, who said the war may have actually consolidated the clerical rulers’ power in Tehran. Somora noted that if Iran’s leadership remained in power beyond another month, he would grow increasingly concerned.
Views on economic aspects of the agreement varied. Joyce Kenney, 74, a retiree in Prescott, Arizona, supported lifting sanctions on the grounds that restoring Iran’s ability to engage in trade might encourage compliance with the truce. But she drew a line at the reconstruction fund, saying it was not the United States’ responsibility to bankroll rebuilding efforts.
Overall, the interviews illustrated a fracture among Trump’s 2024 supporters: while some retained loyalty or hoped for covert plans to weaken Iran later, a larger number expressed misgivings that cut across the group. Several said the agreement could depress turnout or make them less inclined to back Republican candidates in crucial congressional races this November.
When asked to comment, a White House spokesperson told Reuters that Trump’s “achievement on the battlefield and at the negotiating table is nothing short of remarkable and will strengthen American security for many years.” The assertion contrasts with the skepticism and disappointment voiced in the interviews, where concerns about trust, economic effects and political consequences were frequently cited.
Contextual note: The memorandum announced on June 14 included a temporary lifting of U.S. oil sanctions, reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and authorization of a $300 billion fund structured as a private investment vehicle; precise details of that vehicle were not available to the interviewees and remain unspecified in public statements cited in these interviews.