President Donald Trump indicated Tuesday he would consider sending details of a preliminary U.S.-Iran peace framework to Congress for review, as bipartisan lawmakers demanded transparency on an agreement that could involve substantial financial commitments and national security implications. The memorandum of understanding, announced and signed digitally 3 days ago, aims to extend a ceasefire for 60 days while establishing a framework for future negotiations over Tehran's nuclear program.
Senate leaders from both parties said they had not been briefed on the accord and were requesting detailed information about its provisions. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters Tuesday he had not received briefings on the agreement. "I certainly have not yet, although we are requesting that, and I assume we at some point will hear from the administration with greater specificity about what's in that memorandum," Thune said. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called for congressional briefings and public disclosure. "Americans need to know what Trump has promised to Iran and what the United States will get out of it," Schumer said on the Senate floor Tuesday.
Congressional Authority and Treaty Questions
Several Republican senators argued that any final agreement should be submitted to Congress as a treaty requiring Senate ratification, not merely as an executive agreement that could be reversed by a future administration. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who is retiring at the end of this Congress, said President Barack Obama made a mistake by not pursuing treaty status for the previous Iran nuclear deal. "Otherwise, it's only good for 2½ years. How does [the] market price in any certainty with the uncertainty of the next president accepting the JCPOA in the same way that this president rejected the JCPOA?" Tillis said. Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah, also said Congress should sign off on any deal.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a key Trump ally, expressed concern about potential discrepancies between Iranian and American interpretations of the agreement. "I am somewhat concerned that Iran's view of the agreement seems different than what the American negotiating team is claiming," Graham wrote in a post to X on Sunday. "Under our law, any nuclear deal with Iran will be sent to Congress for review and a vote. I look forward to reviewing the final product and I believe it is imperative that the architect of the deal, Vice President [JD] Vance and his negotiating partners, be part of the process in presenting the final deal to Congress." Asked Tuesday about Graham's comments, Trump said: "I have to talk to Lindsay. He will be in big trouble."
Financial Provisions Under Scrutiny
Lawmakers questioned rumored provisions including a $300 billion Iran reconstruction fund and the release of frozen Iranian assets. Vice President JD Vance and other senior administration officials have said a reconstruction fund is possible. Vance said reports that Iran could receive up to $24 billion in frozen assets are false. Trump posted to TruthSocial on Monday that claims of the U.S. paying Iran $300 billion to rebuild were "Fake News, put out by the Dumocrats!!!"
Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., characterized the framework as preliminary. "I mean, from what I've heard about it, it sounds like it's just a deal to try to reach a deal, and the only immediate impact will be opening up the strait," Kennedy said. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said he was concerned the deal could contain too many concessions to Iran. "I think this peace agreement could well be a surrender in effect," Blumenthal said. "And the president is very reluctant to make it public. He wants to keep it secret as long as possible, so that he can frame perceptions and potentially deceive people about what's in it."
Economic and Security Framework
The preliminary deal would reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which was effectively shut down this spring amid the conflict that began in February, disrupting international supply chains and sending gas prices soaring. Graham said he was "pleased" about a deal to potentially open the strait. Trump said Tuesday the Strait of Hormuz was already beginning to open to shipping traffic. "Ships are starting to move now," Trump said. "Oil is starting to go and prices are coming down rapidly."
Vance, appearing on CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Monday, said many details of the deal still need to be ironed out. The two major provisions, according to Vance, are reopening the Strait of Hormuz and a commitment from Iran not to develop nuclear weapons. Trump has repeatedly said preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is a key objective of the war. "There are a lot of very important details to figure out that we're actually going to sit at the table and discuss together and figure out a path forward on these details," Vance said.
The text of the agreement has not been released, though Trump has said he would unveil details 2 days from now. An official signing ceremony is scheduled for Friday in Geneva. Trump made his comments about congressional review while arriving at a bilateral meeting in France with United Arab Emirates President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan. He is in Évian-les-Bains, France, for the 2026 G7 summit. "What I would like to do is send it to Congress and say 'you shouldn't approve it.' And they will approve it," Trump said, apparently joking.
Why This Matters:
The framework's uncertain financial commitments and lack of congressional input raise fundamental questions about fiscal accountability and constitutional authority over foreign policy. Without treaty status, any agreement remains vulnerable to reversal, creating market uncertainty that undermines the economic benefits of reopening the Strait of Hormuz. The potential release of frozen assets and reconstruction funding could provide Iran with resources while key provisions on nuclear weapons remain unspecified. Congressional oversight ensures that any deal serves American national interests and does not repeat past mistakes of executive agreements that lacked durability. The discrepancy between American and Iranian interpretations of the framework, as noted by Senator Graham, suggests potential implementation challenges that could undermine the agreement's effectiveness and credibility in future negotiations.