...
By Steve Mollman
News Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Rupert Murdoch-controlled outlets, including Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, are breaking with President Donald Trump over his Iran deal, in a rare instance of sustained criticism from influential conservative media.
Across those outlets, hosts, commentators and editorial pages have questioned the deal’s terms and broader strategy, marking a notable shift from their frequent alignment with Trump’s agenda. The criticism underscores the outsized role these platforms play in shaping conservative opinion and political messaging.
A March 21 Bloomberg report, citing people familiar with private discussions, said Murdoch was among outside voices urging Trump to take a harder line on Iran, communicating with him multiple times as his media empire adopted a hawkish tone early in the conflict.
Read More on U.S.
Now, months later, some of those same voices are expressing skepticism about the agreement meant to end the war, raising questions about whether Trump delivered the outcome he had long promised.
Fox News Criticism Grows
The most visible pushback is coming from Fox News, where several hosts have openly questioned the deal’s substance.
Brian Kilmeade, co-host of Fox & Friends, described the memorandum of understanding (MOU) as “very vague and concerning,” pointing to imprecise language governing the deal. He focused on provisions requiring Iran to use its “best efforts” to meet key commitments, arguing that the wording raises questions about enforcement.
Kilmeade also cast doubt on whether the deal achieved the administration’s stated objective, saying it “doesn’t look like Iran has been brought to its knees,” a line that directly contrasts with earlier claims about U.S. pressure on Tehran.
...
Other Fox News figures echoed those concerns. Host Trey Gowdy criticized the deal for potentially leaving Iran “a richer country” even though “they lost the war,” suggesting that financial provisions and sanctions relief could benefit Tehran despite the U.S. campaign to weaken it.
That concern was echoed by retired four-star general and Fox News contributor Jack Keane, who told Sean Hannity on Tuesday that while the U.S. was “clearly…taking a diplomatic path now,” he saw no indication “that the behavior of this regime is going to change.”
Keane also sharply questioned proposals tied to a roughly $300 billion recovery framework for Iran, arguing that any such funding would ultimately strengthen Iran’s current leadership. He added, “Who cares where the money comes from? If it doesn’t come from the United States, I get that. Of course it shouldn’t. But it shouldn’t come from anybody. I mean, when we recovered Germany and Japan, the Nazis weren’t in charge, the Japanese imperialists weren’t in charge.”
White House spokeswoman Olivia Wales told Newsweek on Friday: " Following the historic destruction of Iran’s military capabilities through the successful Operation Epic Fury, President Trump and his negotiating team have brokered an excellent, performance-based MOU that advances the interests of the United States by ending the fighting, reopening the Strait of Hormuz to significantly lower energy prices, and forcing Iran to commit to abandon its nuclear ambitions. What the President has achieved on the battlefield and at the negotiating table is nothing short of remarkable and will strengthen American security for many years to come.”
Mark Levin Breaks With Trump
Fox News host Mark Levin’s reaction to the Iran deal has drawn particular attention.
Levin, long one of Trump’s most vocal foreign policy allies, sharply criticized the agreement after its release, dissecting the memorandum of understanding in a detailed, point-by-point analysis posted on X Wednesday.
Levin argued the deal undercuts U.S. leverage at a critical moment, questioning why the U.S. would agree to an immediate and “permanent” halt to military action while key issues remain unresolved and negotiations are still ongoing. He described it as “unthinkable” to give up the threat of force before Iran has complied with any final terms.
He also renewed his longstanding warning that Iran cannot be trusted to honor any agreement, arguing the regime has historically used negotiations to buy time and advance its objectives.
More broadly, Levin suggested the deal cuts short a campaign he said had inflicted significant damage on Iran’s military, arguing the U.S. had not fully used its leverage before shifting to diplomacy. He warned that unless the terms are significantly strengthened during the upcoming negotiation period, the conflict could ultimately continue anyway.
Wall Street Journal, New York Post Reaction
Opinion coverage in The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post has raised similar concerns, particularly about whether the agreement offers economic or diplomatic concessions too early in the process.
Commentary in these outlets has focused on the risk that Iran could receive benefits—whether through reconstruction funding, sanctions relief or renewed economic activity—while more difficult issues such as nuclear limits and long-term enforcement are pushed into future negotiations.
That critique aligns with longstanding conservative arguments that pressure should be maintained until clear, verifiable commitments are secured.
One Wall Street Journal op-ed zeroed in on the agreement that Iran “will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge, for 60 days only....” The op-ed noted that Trump sounded “desperate” to end the conflict and noted:
“The regime held Hormuz hostage during the war. The danger here is in formalizing the extortion into a new, worse status quo. The deal also empowers Iran to 'define the future administration' of Hormuz in dialogue with obsequious Oman. This is a recipe for the surrender of the Strait to the dictates of Iranian foreign policy.”
A New York Post column, meanwhile, ran with the headline: “Trump’s Iran deal gives the Islamic Republic big wins up front — and America nothing.”
Republican Pushback Expands
Skepticism in conservative media is being echoed by prominent Republicans.
Former Vice President Mike Pence has criticized the deal as resembling “appeasement,” arguing it lacks firm commitments on Iran’s nuclear program, missile development and support for regional proxies.
On Capitol Hill, GOP senators have also raised concerns about both the agreement's substance and the limited information shared with Congress. Some have questioned whether the United States is offering too many concessions without securing clear strategic gains, while others have called for greater oversight of any final deal.
This overlap between media criticism and Republican pushback highlights a broader unease within the party.
...
Trump Murdoch Relationship History
The current moment reflects a long and sometimes uneasy relationship between Trump and Murdoch’s media empire.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Murdoch’s outlets were divided on Trump. Some Fox News figures were openly critical, while others became key allies. As Trump secured the Republican nomination and later the presidency, Fox News increasingly aligned with his messaging, becoming a central platform for his administration.
At the same time, The Wall Street Journal editorial page often maintained its independence, criticizing Trump’s policies on trade, deficits and foreign affairs. The New York Post has also shifted between strong support and sharp criticism at different moments.
There have been notable tensions as well. During the 2020 election, Fox News’ early call for Joe Biden in Arizona triggered backlash from Trump and his supporters, illustrating underlying friction between the president and parts of Murdoch’s media network.
Despite those episodes, Murdoch’s outlets have remained highly influential among conservative audiences and frequently aligned with Trump’s political agenda.
Blame Shifts and Internal Debate
Within Fox News and conservative commentary, some voices have directed criticism at Vance or other negotiators involved in crafting the deal, suggesting that Trump himself may not have been deeply involved in the details.
This reflects a familiar pattern in pro-Trump media: separating criticism of policy from criticism of the president personally.
But as more details emerge and scrutiny intensifies, that distinction may become harder to maintain, particularly as influential figures like Levin engage directly with both the deal's substance and the administration’s approach.
A Rare Conservative Media Break
Trump’s relationship with these outlets has always been fluid, with periods of strong alignment and occasional conflict.
But the reaction to the Iran deal shows that support is not automatic—particularly on complex foreign policy issues where expectations around strength, leverage and outcomes are high.
As negotiations continue and more details of the agreement come into focus, the response from Murdoch’s media empire will remain a key barometer of how the deal is judged within conservative politics—and whether Trump can win over skeptical voices that have long been among his most important allies.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines