Vice President Vance told reporters Thursday that the administration is "quite confident" it can temporarily waive sanctions on Iranian oil exports without seeking a vote from Congress, a claim that sets up a direct confrontation with lawmakers in both parties who believe the White House is giving away its strongest leverage before hard nuclear talks even begin.
The assertion came during a press briefing in which Vance defended a newly signed 14-point memorandum of understanding with Tehran. One provision of that MOU directs the Treasury Department to issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products, derivatives, and associated services immediately upon signing, The Hill reported.
Vance framed the move as a practical concession, not a strategic one. The sanctions, he argued, had already failed. Iran was selling oil freely and at full price regardless of American pressure. The real tool, he said, was the naval blockade, not the paper restrictions Congress had put in place.
The vice president drew a bright line between executive authority and congressional prerogative, but he did so without naming the specific legal mechanism the administration intends to use.
"There are certain things that require congressional approval. There are certain things that don't require congressional approval. We feel quite confident that we can temporarily lift those sanctions without going to Congress and seeking their approval on that."
That confidence runs headlong into the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, a federal law that prevents the president from lifting sanctions on Iran before discussing it with Congress. Vance acknowledged the existence of that obligation in spirit, promising the administration would brief lawmakers "very soon" and noting that informal briefings had already taken place over the past week.
But promising to brief Congress is not the same as submitting a deal for its review. The distinction matters. The administration previously pledged to submit the Iran deal to Congress under the existing review law. Whether Treasury's waiver authority can operate independently of that process is the kind of question that will land in a hearing room, or a courtroom, soon enough.
Vance went further than simply defending the legal path. He argued that waiving oil sanctions was barely a concession at all.
"We didn't see that as a major concession to the Iranians, frankly. The Iranians didn't see that as a concession to them, because what prevented them from selling oil was not the sanctions, they were selling plenty of oil without any discount, because the sanctions were just fundamentally ineffective at that point."
He drew a sharp contrast between sanctions and the blockade: "The sanctions had stopped being effective. The blockade is what's effective."
That framing is convenient. If sanctions were truly worthless, Tehran would have no reason to insist on their removal as a condition of any deal. Yet the MOU specifically includes their waiver as one of its 14 points, suggesting both sides understood the provision carried real value.
The administration's position has drawn fire not just from the usual Democratic critics but from conservative national-security voices who worry the United States is surrendering financial leverage before the 60-day nuclear negotiation window even opens.
Mark Dubowitz and Miad Maleki of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies warned in a New York Post op-ed that Iran currently holds an estimated $20, 50 billion in trapped oil revenues in Chinese bank accounts it cannot freely access due to secondary financial sanctions. After the Obama-era nuclear deal, they noted, Iran's IRGC military budget jumped roughly 90 percent in the first year, funding Hezbollah, Houthi, and Hamas capabilities.
"Surrendering the financial architecture that keeps these funds frozen before the hard bargaining begins is not a confidence-building measure. It is squandering your best card."
That warning carries weight. The MOU also reportedly includes a $300 billion reconstruction and economic development fund for Iran, a figure that has alarmed lawmakers across the aisle. The administration has outlined plans to unfreeze Iranian assets as part of the broader framework, adding to the scale of the financial package Tehran stands to receive.
Republican senators have not stayed quiet. Senators Katie Britt, Tom Cotton, and Lindsey Graham introduced a resolution demanding complete dismantlement and destruction of Iran's nuclear program in any deal, the Washington Free Beacon reported. The resolution reflects deep unease among Trump's own allies about what the 14-point MOU actually secures in return for the concessions it grants.
Former U.S. special representative to Iran Elliott Abrams captured the anxiety plainly: "This is complicated and dangerous, and the Iranian negotiators have long experience. Our negotiator, Steven Witkoff, has none, and that is worrying."
Democrats, meanwhile, have seized on the deal's terms. Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut declared it "a national embarrassment," saying Iran would be able to sell oil without sanctions starting next week while the Strait of Hormuz returns permanently to Iranian control. Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said of the $300 billion fund: "It's not going to be used for constructive, useful purposes." Those reactions were reported by the Washington Times.
Senate Democrats have also tried to reassert congressional authority through a war powers push, though Senate Republicans blocked that effort as the deal neared its finish line.
The MOU itself has not been publicly released in full. Beyond the oil sanctions waiver, the deal reportedly includes a 60-day ceasefire, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and an end to the U.S. naval blockade of Iran's ports. President Trump, speaking at the G7 summit in France, offered a characteristically blunt summary: "Nobody knows what it is, but it's very strong." He added: "It's a memorandum of understanding and if I don't like it, we'll go back to shooting at them, dropping bombs."
What the MOU does not appear to include, at least based on what has leaked, is any upfront requirement that Iran dismantle its nuclear infrastructure. The 60-day window opens a path to negotiations on that front, but the hard bargaining has not started. And Iran will be selling oil freely while those talks proceed.
Russia's role adds another layer of complication. President Putin has agreed to extend credit to Tehran, build a new nuclear facility, and expand work at Iran's Bushehr plant, moves Abrams described as intended to "undermine the U.S.-Iran negotiations."
The administration has drawn a sharp contrast between this deal and the Obama-era pact, but the early criticism from the right follows a familiar pattern: too much given, too little secured, too early in the process.
Vance's confidence that Treasury can act without Congress may prove legally correct. Executive authority over sanctions waivers is broad, and administrations of both parties have stretched it before. But legal authority and political wisdom are different things.
The administration is asking Congress to accept that sanctions it passed into law were already dead letters, and that their formal removal costs nothing. It is asking conservative hawks to trust that a blockade can be turned back on if negotiations fail. And it is asking the American public to believe that handing Iran immediate access to global oil markets, plus a $300 billion reconstruction pipeline, will produce a better nuclear outcome than keeping the pressure on.
Those are heavy asks. Vance promised transparency. He said the team would brief Congress, answer questions, and keep lawmakers informed. Whether that amounts to genuine consultation or a courtesy call after the fact will determine whether this deal survives contact with Capitol Hill.
When your negotiating partner insists that your leverage doesn't matter, that's usually a sign it matters a great deal.
