Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, questions Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins during a Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies hearing on the President's Fiscal Year 2027 Budget Request for the Department of Veterans Affairs, Thursday, April 30, 2026 in Washington. (AP Photo/Kevin Wolf)

Sen. Angus King on Thursday blasted President Donald Trump’s agreement to end hostilities with Iran, calling it a “terrible deal” that will not benefit the United States.

Speaking to local reporters about a defense funding bill, King argued that the joint military campaign by the United States and Israel was “illegal from the get-go.” And now, he says, the countries have little to show for it.

“The agreement essentially gives everything to Iran and pretty much nothing to us,” said King, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. “I read it carefully yesterday — all 14 points — and frankly, I was amazed because it is so one-sided.”

King’s reaction stands in stark contrast to Republican Sen. Susan Collins, who issued an 18-word statement to the Press Herald Thursday afternoon.

“The MOU raises a lot of questions, and the Administration should provide a thorough briefing to the Senate,” Collins said. (Earlier in the day, Collins had told reporters in Washington, D.C., that she had not read the agreement.)

The U.S. and Israel started bombing Iran on Feb. 28. Trump has said his goal was to change the regime and prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. The U.S. had hoped for a popular uprising after killing Iranian leaders early in the campaign, but it never happened.

Casualties so far include 13 U.S. service members and more than 3,000 Iranians. And Moody’s Analytics estimates the conflict has cost taxpayers and consumers $132 billion, National Public Radio reported Wednesday.

Trump’s memorandum of understanding establishes a framework for more detailed negotiations with Iran over the next 60 days.

Iran agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and reaffirm its prior commitment not to pursue a nuclear weapon.

In return, the U.S. agreed to work with “regional partners” to provide $300 billion to help rebuild Iran after weeks of bombing and to immediately lift sanctions on oil. The U.S. also agreed to end “all types of sanctions,” unfreeze Iranian assets and end a naval blockade that has crippled the Iranian economy.

King said he initially thought rumors about Trump agreeing to provide $300 billion in reconstruction funding was “a joke.” He said the financial benefit for Iran practically doubles the country’s gross domestic product.

And King derided the U.S. “wins” as weaker concessions than those in the deal negotiated by former President Barack Obama, especially with regard to the nuclear program.

Trump withdrew from that deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, in 2018. That agreement included a provision that allowed international inspections to ensure that Iran was not enriching uranium for a weapon.

“We had total visibility as to what the Iranians were doing,” King said. “We have none of that in this memorandum of understanding. There’s no mention of any enforcement mechanism or inspection mechanism. And yesterday, Donald Trump said, ‘Well, if they cheat, we’ll just bomb them again.’ Well, that didn’t seem to work the first time.”

Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-1st District, echoed those criticisms in a written statement, highlighting the human, financial and economic costs of the conflict.

“I want this war ended and our troops brought home safely. But this so-called deal is a colossal failure of diplomacy,” Pingree said. “Trump made Americans less safe, spent billions of taxpayer dollars, drove up the price of gas and everyday costs, disrupted the global economy, strengthened Iran’s negotiating position, alienated our allies, and is now trying to sell the fallout as a win. I’m not buying it.”

Rep. Jared Golden, D-2nd-District, was more reserved. He said the agreement is not the final deal, so he would not “pre-judge the outcome.”

He said he will be looking for a final agreement that makes the U.S. safer, reduces the likelihood of additional conflicts and limits Iran’s ability to get a nuclear weapon.

“The devil is in the details. All we have is a framework for ongoing talks,” Golden said in a written statement.

Golden said Obama’s agreement was “paper-thin” because it was not approved by Congress. He urged Trump to learn from that mistake.

“I believe the president should put any proposed agreement with Iran before Congress,” said Golden, a combat veteran. “A final deal should carry the weight of law.”