This was unexpected.
Fox News anchor Bret Baier is sounding the alarm over President Donald Trump’s controversial new agreement with Iran, raising questions that many conservatives have been asking since details of the deal first emerged.
During a recent appearance on The PBD Podcast, Baier warned that Iran’s decades-long history of deception should give Americans pause before placing too much trust in the regime’s latest promises.
His comments are especially noteworthy because Baier has long been viewed as one of the most respected journalists in conservative media. While many Democrats have attacked Trump’s foreign policy efforts, criticism from a prominent Fox News figure carries added weight among Republican voters.
At the center of the debate is Trump’s newly announced 14-point agreement with Iran, a 60-day framework designed to pave the way for broader negotiations between Washington and Tehran.
Supporters argue the deal could reduce tensions in the Middle East and create a path toward stability. Critics, however, fear it could hand significant economic and strategic advantages to one of America’s longest-standing adversaries.
The agreement has already generated concerns from lawmakers, foreign policy experts, and even some longtime Trump allies who worry the administration may be giving away too much in exchange for uncertain promises from Tehran.
Among the biggest concerns are provisions that could ease economic pressure on Iran through sanctions relief and expanded access to oil markets. Opponents argue that any increase in revenue could strengthen a regime that has spent decades funding terrorist organizations, threatening American allies, and suppressing its own citizens.
Baier Questions Rubio’s Silence
One detail Baier found particularly striking was the absence of public comments from Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
While Vice President JD Vance has aggressively defended the agreement in television appearances and interviews, Rubio has remained largely silent.
Baier said the contrast was impossible to ignore.
According to the Fox News anchor, Vance has become the administration’s chief defender of the deal while one of the nation’s top foreign policy officials has yet to publicly explain why Americans should support it.
That silence has fueled additional speculation among critics who want more answers about exactly what Iran is receiving under the agreement.
Decades Of Distrust
Despite his concerns, Baier said administration officials deserve an opportunity to prove the negotiations can succeed.
Still, he emphasized that history makes many Americans skeptical.
For nearly half a century, Iran has faced accusations of violating agreements, hiding key information, supporting terrorist groups, and using negotiations to buy time while advancing its strategic goals.
That record, Baier suggested, is one reason many conservatives remain deeply uneasy about the current deal.
The Money Question
The most controversial issue may be financial.
Administration officials insist Iran will not receive direct U.S. taxpayer funding.
Critics respond that lifting restrictions on Iranian oil exports could effectively provide the regime with billions of dollars in new revenue.
For opponents of the deal, that distinction matters little.
They argue that regardless of where the money originates, increased oil sales could provide Tehran with additional resources to strengthen its military, fund proxy groups, and expand its influence throughout the Middle East.
What’s Missing From The Agreement?
Baier also highlighted several major issues he believes remain unaddressed.
Although Iran’s military capabilities reportedly suffered significant damage during recent conflicts, the regime still possesses a substantial missile arsenal and remains firmly in control of the country.
The current agreement contains no major restrictions on Iran’s future missile development, according to critics.
Baier also noted that the framework offers no new protections for Iranian citizens who oppose the government.
Human rights organizations have repeatedly accused the regime of brutally suppressing protests and political dissent. Critics argue the agreement does little to address those concerns.
A High-Stakes Gamble
Baier acknowledged that Iran is weaker today than it was before recent military actions.
However, he argued that the regime remains far from defeated and continues to project strength despite its setbacks.
For now, the Trump administration is betting that diplomacy can accomplish what years of pressure and confrontation could not.
Whether that gamble pays off remains one of the biggest foreign policy questions facing the White House.
Over the next 60 days, Americans will be watching closely to see whether the agreement delivers meaningful results—or becomes another chapter in a long history of failed negotiations with Tehran.