Jewish Republican donors and activists are voicing their strong disappointment with President Donald Trump’s newly announced memorandum of understanding with Iran, which has been met with criticism from GOP lawmakers as well as influential hawkish conservatives.

Trump has fiercely defended the deal to end the war with Iran, the text of which was released Wednesday, claiming it is superior to the nuclear agreement with Tehran that was reached by former President Barack Obama in 2015.

But in interviews with Jewish Insider on Thursday, several Jewish conservatives who supported the war expressed misgivings about the deal that reopens the Strait of Hormuz, saying that it had granted too many concessions to a weakened Iran — including waiving sanctions on oil exports — while neglecting to broach the regime’s funding of terror proxies and its ballistic missile arsenal.

They also raised concerns that the memorandum of understanding with Tehran had not been favorable to Israel, a U.S. partner in the war, pointing to a term of the preliminary agreement that calls for a permanent end to military operations in Lebanon, where Israel is fighting Hezbollah, a key Iranian ally.

And they expressed serious doubts over Iran’s willingness to finalize a nuclear agreement during the 60-day negotiating period, fearing it could be indefinitely extended by “mutual consent,” per the terms of the MOU.

Their reactions highlight a rare point of tension between Trump and pro-Israel Republicans, who have long applauded his commitment to upholding a close alliance with the Jewish state, even amid rising hostility to Israel from the populist far right opposed to foreign wars.

Vice President JD Vance, who had initially been skeptical of the war, delivered a scathing public rebuke of Israeli officials who had criticized the agreement, saying on Thursday that Trump is “the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time” and warning Israeli detractors against “attacking the only powerful ally” they have “anywhere left in the entire world.”

But Eric Levine, a top GOP fundraiser who is on the board of the Republican Jewish Coalition, said that the war “achieved none of its stated aims,” including Trump’s pledge to liberate Iranians from a theocratic regime and nuclear disarmament. “We ran 26 miles, and then chose to stop at the last 385 yards,” he told JI. “I don’t understand why.”

“The most disturbing thing about the deal is that we have conceded to the Iranians up front that they can leave Lebanon alone,” Levine added, saying the deal effectively constrained Israel’s right to defend itself.

Levine predicted a future scenario in which Hezbollah would be “lobbing missiles into Israel” before the upcoming elections in Israel and the United States, prompting a disastrous chain reaction that could lead to the collapse of the deal and result in widespread GOP losses in November.

“Call me disappointed that we’re going down this road,” he sighed.

The RJC, for its part, was more positive about the deal, saying on Thursday that it had confidence in Trump’s decision, even as it was “deeply skeptical that the Islamic Republic has a genuine interest in peace or will abandon its Islamist, hegemonic malign ambitions in the region.”

The group said it was reassured that Trump had threatened to strike Iran again if it reneged on the agreement. “We take the president at his word and trust him to finish the job in the best interests of the United States and our allies in the region,” the RJC wrote in a lengthy statement.

Other Jewish leaders, however, have not been as charitable in assessing Trump’s motivations. One prominent Jewish Republican donor criticized the deal, speculating it had only come as a response to Trump’s fears about GOP losses in the midterms, as the war and rising gas prices have emerged as potent sources of Democratic attacks.

Gabriel Groisman, a Republican donor in Florida, said the terms of the deal were “certainly worrisome,” noting that “there is still no agreement on the major issues” such as “uranium enrichment, Iran’s ballistic missile program and its funding of terrorist proxies,” even as “sanctions relief appears poised to take effect immediately.”

“This MOU is not the end of the war and it unfortunately will not bring lasting peace,” he told JI. “Instead,” he added, “it appears to signal a significant realignment of American policy in the region, which raises serious concerns for many Americans, for U.S. allies and of course for American Jews, who have a special interest in the safety and security of the world’s only Jewish state.”

Joshua Katzen, the publisher of the Jewish News Syndicate and an RJC board member, echoed that sentiment, saying that he was “disappointed to see” Trump “apparently throwing away the leverage he has painstakingly accumulated and trading it for promises that are likely to be broken.”

“The worst aspect is that by relieving sanctions and allowing Iran to sell oil before they have performed more than letting a few ships through Hormuz,” he added, “Trump had given them the funds to rebuild and reconstitute the threat that he just spent billions of dollars to degrade.”

Katzen expressed hope that Trump was “playing four-dimensional chess here, as he often has in the past, but right now, I’m not so sure his horizon is larger than temporarily reducing oil prices while giving Iran the funds and time to renew their existential threat.”

While many Jewish Republicans acknowledged that Trump had been a strong friend to Israel and praised his initial decision to attack Iran, they were otherwise largely baffled about his decision to end the war, even as some attempted to put a positive spin on the move.

“I’m on a bunch of various threads and the majority are not happy, to say the least,” Alan Sager, a Jewish Republican donor and activist based in Texas, told JI. “I’m a wait-and-see guy.”

Still, he added that he was confused with Trump’s decision and doubted the Iranians would operate in good faith — particularly with regard to nuclear talks that have long proven to be unfruitful. “I don’t know what Trump is thinking,” he told JI. “I don’t trust the Iranians as far as I can throw them.”

Brad Kastan, a GOP donor in Ohio, said he was “taken aback like everybody else” when he learned about the deal, while acknowledging there was “no doubt” Trump ceded valuable leverage in readily agreeing to a range of key concessions. 

“But as in most things in life, things are never as good as you hoped or as bad as you feared,” he told JI, speculating that perhaps Trump agreed to an end to the war in order to “buy more time” for the United States and Israel to replenish their eroding munitions reserves. “Why would you let them off the mat unless you needed to?” 

“For every disappointment, I can’t help but think of all the good that happened. There are a lot of people rushing to jump to conclusions” while ignoring “the bigger picture,” Kastan said. “To conclude we are not better off today than we were a year ago is objectively false,” he argued, claiming “Iran is back on its heels.”

Marc Zell, an Israeli-American lawyer and chairman of Republicans Overseas Israel, said in a social media post on Friday that he did not “like the content of the MOU or the tone of certain statements from the” White House “defending it, but that’s politics in an election year.”  

“The bottom line is the relationship between Israel and the U.S. is strong and inviolable,” Zell wrote.

One top Jewish Republican bundler said he was also more sanguine about Trump’s deal. “He took a huge risk for Israel, and people need to see what happens and calm down,” the bundler told JI, referring to the start of the war in February. “No president has done more than him or would do more.”

But Joel Geiderman, an RJC board member in Los Angeles, argued that “Israel’s last reliable ally seems to have abandoned her,” telling JI that he was “very disappointed” with the recently approved agreement.

Another top GOP donor, who also spoke with JI on condition of anonymity to address a sensitive subject in the wake of the deal, suggested that he was looking at the agreement through a realist’s lens.

In initially launching the war, Trump had “greatly underestimated Iran’s capabilities and willingness to stick with it,” and “put himself in a box where he had to make a deal,” the donor explained. “Every time he announced we had won the war, they’d shoot another ballistic missile.”

“Do I like this deal? Hell no. Nobody thinks he made a great deal. But there’s a difference between making a great deal and making the only deal you can make,” he told JI. “Knowing Donald Trump, he was going to make a deal.”

When a group of Jewish Democratic activists and donors convened in Washington this week for the annual leadership summit of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, the message seemed to be one of defiance: defiance against President Donald Trump, to be sure, but also a defiant attitude pushing back against some of the recent shifts within the party. 

JDCA’s primary objective is to elect Democrats. But as more Democrats have taken positions critical of or outright hostile to Israel, JDCA’s top activists made clear this week that another major concern is making sure pro-Israel Jews continue to be welcome in the party. 

“We are fighting to ensure that the views and values of Jewish Americans continue to find their political home in the Democratic Party in Michigan and beyond, and we have work to do,” Halie Soifer, the group’s CEO, said on Tuesday night. She noted that the JDCA hopes to help defeat Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, a far-left candidate who appears to be rising in the polls. 

“It’s clear there’s one candidate whose views are antithetical to ours, and we want to ensure he’s defeated,” said Soifer, though she did not name El-Sayed directly. JDCA has not endorsed either of his opponents, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow or Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI). 

“We at JDCA only support Democrats, but we do not support them all,” Soifer told the summit. “We understand it’s not just about electing Democrats. It’s about electing Democrats who align with us, and this includes efforts to ensure that candidates who have espoused anti-Israel and/or antisemitic views are defeated before November.” 

Over the two-day gathering, a parade of high-profile speakers from Democratic leadership — Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), along with Reps. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Steny Hoyer (D-MD), respectively the former House speaker and majority leader — addressed the convening. Their appearances seemed designed to affirm that Democrats remain pro-Israel and committed to fighting antisemitism. 

“We have to decisively confront antisemitism from wherever it comes from,” said Jeffries. “I will always hold firm in my support for the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state and eternal homeland for the Jewish people.” 

Schumer did not specifically discuss Israel but raised concerns about the increasing use of the word “Zionist” as a slur. 

“I’ve long said we must fight antisemitism wherever and whenever it appears, even if it’s in our own party. I’ll continue to do so,” said Schumer. “Today, antisemitism takes all different forms: Holocaust denialism, conspiratorial delusions of Jewish or Zionist control of the world, replacing the word ‘Jewish’ with the word ‘Zionist’ to demonize Jewish communities.”

The outgoing Democratic leaders were not as sanguine, instead offering a note of caution about how the dynamic towards Israel has shifted within the Democratic Party. 

“Always, but right now, we really have to work together to make sure that support for Israel is, without question, bipartisan,” Pelosi said. “It doesn’t mean we don’t have our differences of opinion … but it should not weaken the fact that we have bipartisan support. That has always been the tradition, and we must make sure we get through this place where we are, where there may be some doubt in people’s minds as to whether that is a value.” 

Pelosi is retiring at the end of this year, as is Hoyer, who was even more blunt: “How many of you have been anxious yourselves about rhetoric heard from some Democratic officials and candidates? We ought to be,” he said. 

Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) said he hoped to prove that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) does not speak for the party on matters related to Israel, though he noted with worry that Sanders’ attitude — one that is deeply critical of Israel — appears to be on the rise.

“It’s clearer and clearer to me that there is real alarm about a fundamental break between Democrats as a party and Israel as a nation, and I’m going to do everything I can to resist and oppose that break, while criticizing [Benjamin] Netanyahu and his values and decisions,” said Coons. “I’m trying to be an effective and engaged voice with a perspective that you just heard and not have Bernie Sanders be the only senator whose perspective and attitude is heard across the country.” 

Forty Senate Democrats voted last month for a Sanders-authored resolution attempting to block some arms sales to Israel, a record high. Coons said he knows those senators still support Israel’s right to exist, but cautioned that being too critical of Netanyahu can give cover to people who are actually anti-Israel. 

“I strongly support Israel’s right to exist, its right to be a Jewish homeland and a democracy, and its value to the American people as a partner and ally,” said Coons. “I think we are at risk of some of my colleagues, in trying to send a message to Netanyahu or in opposition to his policies and stances, to be misunderstood as abandoning that commitment.” 

Coons said that on the campaign trail, and on recent trips around the country, he hears “profound concern about where’s the Democratic Party going on Israel.” Some Jewish politicians who addressed the JDCA summit expressed a deeper sense of unease and discomfort about their Jewish identity, against the backdrop of rising antisemitism. 

Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), who spoke at a cocktail reception Tuesday evening, talked about how challenging it is to be a Jewish elected official in the current environment.

“It has become deeply, deeply complicated to be a Jew in America,” said Slotkin. “There’s not a single day that goes by for myself representing the state of Michigan that I am not feeling torn.” 

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey delivered a jolt of energy to the room with an impassioned speech about his community’s support for immigrants in the face of ICE enforcement activity, which resulted in the killing of two American citizens by ICE agents in his city in January. When a JDCA member asked him for advice on how to respond to others in the Democratic Party who have made anti-Zionism a political litmus test, he expressed concern. 

“It has been deeply concerning for me personally, as a proud Jew,” Frey said. “I am a great supporter of the endurance of our American Republic, a big believer that America should continue to exist, and an adamant opponent of Donald Trump. The same thing can apply to Israel.”

Ultimately, though, the gathering was a political pep rally — a chance for Democratic activists and donors to hear from politicians at all levels of government and gin up excitement ahead of this year’s midterm elections. Everyone who addressed the gathering all but guaranteed that Democrats would take back control of the House and Senate. 

The conversations seemed meant to ressure Jewish Democrats about both the party’s fortunes for November and its treatment of pro-Israel Jews. One JDCA activist described the group’s work as “grasstops,” which was demonstrated by the appearances from top party leaders. 

But the anti-Israel sentiment that has steadily grown within the party over the past three years is not coming from party leaders; it is driven by far-left activists. Whether JDCA has a plan to counter that grassroots energy remains to be seen — and the answer will only come at the ballot box later this year. 

When thousands of Michigan’s most ardent Democratic activists gathered in Detroit on Sunday for the party’s nominating convention, Decky Alexander was thrilled: 200 people were in the room for a Jewish Democratic Caucus meeting, more than double the 70 people who showed up last year in its first official gathering. 

Candidates for statewide office, from the U.S. Senate to attorney general, came by to pitch voters as activists schmoozed over bagels.

“It was incredibly energizing and affirming. That’s how the day began,” Alexander, who chairs the caucus, told Jewish Insider in an interview on Tuesday. “It didn’t end that way.”

As the day went on, Jewish Democrats were alarmed to see pro-Israel voices within the party marginalized and shouted down. 

“Our Jewish caucus brought a lot of people to the convention, and I was with many of those people who were first-time conventiongoers. They were — I would use the term shell-shocked,” said Joan Lowenstein, a lawyer and former Ann Arbor city councilmember.

Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI), a moderate and pro-Israel candidate for Senate, faced loud, sustained boos when she spoke in front of the main convention room. One person spotted an attendee on Sunday wearing a shirt that said “Resistance until liberation,” with an image showing someone wearing a keffiyeh throwing rocks. 

The main reason that activists gathered that day was to vote to nominate candidates for a range of positions, including attorney general and secretary of state, distinct from other states where voters directly elect their party’s primary nominees. 

The outcome of one relatively low-level race generated the most headlines: delegates’ decision to nominate Amir Makled, a Dearborn attorney with a history of social media posts praising Hezbollah, for a position on the University of Michigan Board of Regents. He unseated incumbent Jordan Acker, who is Jewish and was in part targeted due to his calls to discipline anti-Israel student protesters during the 2024 encampment at the Ann Arbor campus.

Acker told The Detroit News afterward that the level of antisemitism among Michigan Democrats is “extensive.”

“The question we have to ask as Jews is whether we still belong here,” said Acker, a Democrat. 

The Democratic Party congratulated Makled in social media posts. What remains unclear is just how far party leaders will go to support Makled as he proceeds to the general election. Curtis Hertel, the chair of the Michigan Democratic Party, did not respond to a request for comment. 

But Makled’s nomination is cause for concern among many Jewish Democrats. 

“I certainly cannot vote for somebody who praises Hezbollah and uplifts posts that use ‘Jew’ as a slur. This was an unacceptable nomination, and I simply cannot affiliate with somebody who harbors those views,” Jeremy Moss, a state senator who is running for Congress in the Detroit suburbs, told JI on Tuesday. 

Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-MI), a moderate Democrat representing a swing district, who is not Jewish, on Tuesday described the scenes from the convention as “deeply troubling,” and in particular criticized the party’s nomination of Makled. 

For Jewish Democrats who are not willing to disavow Israel, the question of what to do in a race like the Board of Regents is uncertain. Lowenstein, the Ann Arbor activist, said she would “never” support Makled, but that she also would not vote for a Republican. 

“I think Jewish voters are now in a position where we have to look at each person, and not look at their party, but look at what they stand for,” she said. 

“I need to create the table, not just always be invited to the table. I just don’t know what that looks like,” said Decky Alexander, the Jewish caucus chair. “It’s a heartbreak. I felt, in moments, is this going to be a breakup? I don’t think so, but we’ve been feeling this way, a lot of us, for a long time.” 

The Jewish voters who attended the convention on Sunday are among the most committed Democrats in the state, which makes it more notable that some were left questioning their place in the party. 

“They think that there’s shrinking room for them in spaces that claim to be inclusive,” said Elyssa Schmier, the Anti-Defamation League’s Michigan director. “That’s kind of the saying of the Democratic Party: ‘We have a big tent, big-tent politics.’ It did not feel that way at the convention.” 

Even the activists most disillusioned by Sunday’s events acknowledge that the convention attendees are not necessarily representative of the state’s Democratic electorate. All it took to attend the convention was registering as a party member a month beforehand and paying a nominal fee. 

“I don’t know that it was an accurate representation of where the broader Democratic electorate would be, say, in a primary,” said Moss. “But there’s no question, there was incivility at best [and] displays of Jewish antagonism at worst in the convention hall.”

Jewish activists hope this moment of upheaval can be a chance for Jewish Democrats to reassert their place in the party, even if things feel tenuous and difficult at present.

“I need to create the table, not just always be invited to the table. I just don’t know what that looks like,” said Alexander, the Jewish caucus chair. “It’s a heartbreak. I felt, in moments, is this going to be a breakup? I don’t think so, but we’ve been feeling this way, a lot of us, for a long time.” 

Between now and the general election, Alexander wants to talk to as many candidates as possible about whether they plan to take the concerns of Jewish voters seriously. 

“I haven’t changed. I am not a Republican or a conservative. I cannot win my district as an independent. But I also wonder how I can continue to carry this party banner with anything approaching pride, or rather, without anxiety and ambivalence,” state Rep. Noah Arbit, a Democrat who represents West Bloomfield, told JI.

“This isn’t identity politics. This is figuring out, in a pluralistic nation like the United States, does everyone have a place? And we want the people who are running for office to answer: Do the Jews have a place in your vision and your platform?” she said.

Moss said he intends to use his platform as a state lawmaker and congressional candidate to answer that question clearly: Jews do have a place in the Democratic Party.

“My solution is to offer my candidacy for everybody and to ensure that folks know that there is a lane for Jewish Democrats in this moment, that we don’t have to feel hopeless, we don’t have to feel politically homeless, that this is a lane that we have to solidify here,” said Moss. “My core values as a Democrat are really Jewish values.”

For state Rep. Noah Arbit, a Democrat who represents West Bloomfield, the site of an antisemitic attack last month, Sunday’s convention adds to angst he has been feeling about his party for years. He was the one who founded the Jewish caucus in 2019, in response to rising antisemitism on the political left. 

“I haven’t changed. I am not a Republican or a conservative. I cannot win my district as an independent. But I also wonder how I can continue to carry this party banner with anything approaching pride, or rather, without anxiety and ambivalence,” he told JI. Yet he said he will not cave to pressure from the party’s far-left flank.

“I certainly won’t be run out of representing my community by a band of extremists,” said Arbit. “So I need to stay.”

Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) criticized divisive behavior by Democratic Party activists at the Michigan Democratic Party convention last weekend, where activists shouted down pro-Israel voices including Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI) and a speaker supporting University of Michigan regent Jordan Acker. State Sen. Mallory McMorrow also faced some jeers.

“I was really disappointed by some of the behavior, by some folks who were just so negative to Democratic candidates,” Peters told Jewish Insider in a brief interview on Tuesday. “The way we win elections is when we are all united and I would hope that everyone would realize that the most important election for Democrats is going to be in November.”

Peters served for two election cycles as the chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, working to boost Democrats in swing states. He is retiring at the end of this term.

“We have to win in Michigan all up and down the ticket, and it’s not helpful for people to be shouting down candidates who care deeply about the future of this country,” he continued.

He follows Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-MI) in condemning the behavior of activists at last weekend’s convention.

Democratic Party activists on Thursday voted to reject a measure that criticized the involvement of AIPAC in Democratic primaries and the American political system. 

The resolution was debated during a meeting of the Democratic National Committee’s Rules Committee at the DNC’s New Orleans meeting. Committee members were considering new policy resolutions, including one introduced by a Florida activist that took aim at AIPAC and the group’s “undue influence over democratic debate and policymaking.” It was voted down in a voice vote.

“The DNC made clear today that all Democrats, including millions who are AIPAC members, have the right to participate fully in the democratic process,” AIPAC spokesperson Deryn Sousa told Jewish Insider.

Jewish Democratic advocates who were in the meeting room praised the decision. 

“We’re pleased that the resolution that wrongly singled out AIPAC was defeated, and that the other anti-Israel resolutions failed to move forward. These measures would be a gift to Republicans, would further fracture our party and do nothing to bring Israelis and Palestinians closer to peace,” Democratic Majority for Israel CEO Brian Romick, who attended the meeting, told JI after the vote. 

Halie Soifer, the CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, said the group agrees with the goal of getting dark money out of politics but that AIPAC should not be targeted explicitly.

“We agree with the rejection of dark money in politics — a topic covered in another more expansive resolution adopted by the committee — but also believe that singling out any individual organization is both unproductive and unnecessarily divisive,” Soifer, who also attended the meeting, told JI. 

Earlier in the meeting, the committee voted to support a measure “condemning the influence of dark money in the 2026 Democratic primary elections” that called out the artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency industries. 

The vote by the DNC’s resolutions committee comes as the Democratic Party faces growing internal strife about its long-standing support for the U.S.-Israel relationship, as some party activists seek to push the group to the left. A new Pew Research Center poll released this week revealed that 80% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents have an unfavorable view of Israel — an increase from 69% who said the same last year. 

Two other resolutions that touched on Israel-related issues were referred to a working group on the Middle East that DNC Chair Ken Martin created last summer to help smooth over some of the party’s fissures on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

One of these referred to Israel’s actions in Gaza as a genocide and called for conditioning U.S. military aid to Israel, and the other called for de-escalation in Iran and Gaza. A third resolution on the Middle East, condemning the U.S. missile strike that hit a girls’ school in Iran and killed at least 165 people, passed.