A group of prominent Democrats who once positioned themselves as anti-war advocates at the start of the Iran war have recently shown that their disdain for President Donald Trump outweighs their opposition to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.
You might think that if these Democrats truly viewed the Iran war as a calamity for the U.S., the Iranian populace, and the broader Middle East, they would welcome any peace deals—especially those facilitated partly by Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. If peace is paramount, why let the affiliation of the peacemaker, even if it’s someone from New York, get in the way? If you’re really against war, then this isn’t the approach you’d expect to see.
Regardless of Trump’s notable strides towards ending the Iran war, opportunistic Democrats seemed to focus more on their usual anti-Trump sentiments rather than embracing what could have been a significant moment of bipartisan unity.
On June 18, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer made it clear that any peace negotiations would require Congressional approval. He stated, “If Trump wants to send hundreds of billions of dollars to Iran, he needs to do it with Republican votes. Democrats are not going to help Trump send $300 billion to Iran,” via a post on X.
Later that same day, he seemed to clarify his earlier remarks: “As I’ve said from day one, this reckless and illegal war is a mistake, and it’s no surprise it led to these shameful deals. This war must end.”
In Connecticut, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy criticized the deal as “humiliating,” particularly targeting an MOU proposal stating that the U.S. commits to working with regional partners on reconstructing Iran at a cost of at least $300 billion. He framed it as “reparations,” hinting that taxpayers would end up bearing the burden. However, the MOU doesn’t signal a direct payment to Iran; it’s more about creating a fund without the U.S. being entirely responsible for the costs.
Senator Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota took a similar line of attack. “With $300 billion, we could end homelessness, fund cancer research for decades, and provide every child with several years of free preschool. Instead, Trump is sending money to Iran. This doesn’t align with an America First agenda; not at all,” she tweeted on June 16.
Senator Cory Booker from New Jersey also voiced criticism. He reacted to comments from Democratic strategist James Carville, who called on Democrats to acknowledge some merits of Trump’s position. Booker dismissed this by saying, “It’s like an arsonist claiming credit for setting a fire and then escaping the scene.” He added that the current administration has brought chaos, surrendering power to adversaries.
Representative Seth Moulton from Massachusetts echoed Booker’s sentiments, denouncing the memo as essentially a document of surrender. He had previously worked on the War Powers Resolution to limit presidential military deployment without Congressional consent.
Lastly, Congressman Ro Khanna from California, who has identified himself as anti-war, acknowledged that while the end of hostilities with Iran was positive, he criticized the MOU as inferior to the previous agreement established by former President Barack Obama. He argued that the current deal provides Iran with a more favorable arrangement than what Trump had criticized in the past. It seems that California politicians are treading carefully, attempting to balance praise for peace while still taking jabs at the president, which, well, feels pretty typical for a politician.
