President Donald Trump’s temporary agreement to halt the war with Iran has triggered a decline in his approval ratings and drawn criticism from across the political divide including from some of his most loyal supporters.
Interviews with 18 Americans who voted for Trump in 2024, a group Reuters has tracked through monthly conversations since his return to the White House, reveal growing scepticism over the deal. The agreement reopened the Strait of Hormuz, temporarily eased US oil sanctions on Iran and authorized the creation of a $300 billion reconstruction fund.
“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, a 65-year-old pilot from Michigan.
A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found that just one-quarter of Americans believe the conflict with Iran was worth the costs, while a majority expressed doubts that the ceasefire with Tehran would hold for long.
Several Trump voters said they were concerned that what they viewed as concessions to Iran could damage Republican chances of keeping control of Congress in November’s midterm elections. However, many of the strongest critics of the agreement had already grown disillusioned with Trump before the conflict began. Six members of the group said they still believed the president had a broader strategy aimed at weakening or removing Iran’s leadership.
The voters largely supported the military campaign in its early stages, arguing that U.S. strikes were needed to reduce Iran’s supply of long-range missiles and disrupt its nuclear ambitions.
But nearly four months later, with Iran’s leadership appearing politically strengthened and much of its military infrastructure still functioning, 14 of the 18 Trump voters criticized elements of the memorandum of understanding announced on June 14. Many questioned whether Tehran could be trusted to follow through on the agreement and objected to the possibility of billions of dollars being made available for Iran’s reconstruction.
The $300 billion fund is expected to operate as a private investment mechanism rather than a direct government-funded program, though the details remain unclear.
Juan Rivera, 26, said Trump had previously criticized other presidents for negotiating with groups labelled as terrorists, but argued that Trump had now taken a similar approach himself.
Trump endorsement loses its appeal
Rivera said he still intended to support mostly Republican candidates in the midterm elections. However, he said that while recently volunteering to campaign among Latino voters near San Diego, he encountered frustration among fellow Trump supporters who felt disappointed by the president’s handling of the war and other issues.
“Why should I vote when the president’s not doing what he promised?” Rivera said many people were asking.
A White House spokesperson defended Trump’s actions, telling Reuters that his success “on the battlefield and at the negotiating table is nothing short of remarkable” and would improve U.S. security for years to come.
Steve Egan, a 65-year-old promotional products distributor in Tampa, said his support for Trump began fading in early 2025 after tariffs contributed to higher costs for his business. He opposed the Iran war from the beginning, arguing that it increased prices for fuel and other goods.
“At this point, it doesn’t seem like it’s been worth it to go through all that,” Egan said, pointing out that the administration’s stated objective of regime change had not been achieved.
He added that his opinion of Trump had fallen so sharply that a presidential endorsement could now hurt rather than help a candidate seeking his vote in the midterms.
Brandon Neumeister, a 37-year-old Pennsylvania corrections officer and former National Guardsman, said the conflict appeared to have mainly benefited energy companies. He also said he was already unlikely to vote in November because of his frustration with politics more broadly.
Robert Billups, 35, from Washington state, said he was cautiously hopeful that the ceasefire would survive but believed the war had increased anti-American sentiment rather than making the United States safer.
Billups also said his view of Vice President JD Vance, who helped lead negotiations with Iran, had declined. He no longer felt automatically inclined to support Republicans and said he would vote for whichever candidate had the strongest approach, regardless of party.
‘A bigger plan’
Despite Trump’s repeated statements that he wants to end the conflict, six of his strongest supporters said they believed he might still have undisclosed plans to pressure Iran further.
Kate Mottl, 63, a municipal office secretary in suburban Chicago, argued that eliminating Iran’s current leadership was the only way to prevent future conflicts.
She said it would be “very disappointing” if Trump chose not to pursue further military action, adding that she believed “there’s a bigger plan here.”
Rich Somora, 62, an engineer from North Carolina, also suggested Trump likely had additional measures planned.
“I can’t imagine that he would have gone through all this and not found out a way to get rid of those mullahs,” he said.
Diplomats and analysts, however, have argued that the war may have actually reinforced the position of Iran’s clerical leadership. Somora said he would become increasingly concerned if Iran’s rulers remained in power for another month.
In Prescott, Arizona, 74-year-old retiree Joyce Kenney supported lifting sanctions and said allowing Iran to resume trade with other nations could encourage its leaders to respect the ceasefire.
However, she opposed the reconstruction fund, saying rebuilding Iran was not America’s responsibility.
“That’s not our responsibility,” she said.
With inputs from agencies
What do you think about this?
Drop your opinion in the comment section.
Share this with someone who needs to see this.