President Donald Trump's U.S.-Iran memorandum is getting roasted from all sides. On Wednesday, after Washington released the full text of a 14-point framework that aims to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, ease financial restrictions on Tehran, and set the stage for more talks on Iran's nuclear program, both allies and critics took to social media to voice their displeasure.

A senior U.S. administration official read out the document, which follows a weekend breakthrough aimed at ending the conflict and opening a 60-day negotiating window. The memorandum includes provisions for commercial traffic through Hormuz, sanctions relief discussions, treatment of frozen Iranian assets, and a plan for at least $300 billion for Iran's reconstruction and economic development.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) attacked the scale of the proposed funding, comparing it with domestic infrastructure spending. "$300 billion is 5 X as much as Congress spends on our roads & bridges annually. I'm tired of winning," Massie wrote on X. He quoted the memorandum's language saying the U.S. "undertakes with regional partners" to develop a plan of at least $300 billion for Iran.

Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley said the U.S. was right to strike Iran's nuclear and missile sites, but warned that sanctions relief and released funds would strengthen Tehran. "It's a huge mistake to pay to rebuild the threat we just destroyed," Haley wrote. "Hitting Iran's nuclear and missile sites was the right move. This regime chants death to America, murders our troops, and attempts to assassinate Americans on U.S. soil. They believe they have an obligation to destroy us. Now, we plan to unlock billions of dollars and lift sanctions."

Former Vice President Mike Pence credited Trump for using force against Iran but said the memorandum "does smack of the kind of appeasement" rejected during Trump's first term. Pence said the deal should require Iran to dismantle its nuclear program, dismantle its missile program, end support for terrorist proxies, and open the strait. "Failing that, we should let our Armed Forces finish the job on our terms," he wrote.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) criticized the agreement from the opposite side, calling it a predictable failure. "The utter failure of this war – and the surrender document Trump just signed – was completely predictable," Murphy wrote. "This war was unwinnable and that's why so many of us opposed it from the start."

So there you have it: a deal that manages to unite Massie, Haley, Pence, and Murphy in criticism, albeit from very different angles. Whether this memorandum leads to lasting peace or just more debate remains to be seen, but one thing is clear — no one seems entirely happy with it.