Maggie Haberman says Vance’s public opposition to Iran strikes drew Trump ire and strained ties

Vice President JD Vance’s stance against the use of force in Iran, Haberman said Sunday, became a point of disagreement with President Donald Trump that contributed to a deteriorating working relationship. Speaking in remarks relayed by The Hill, Haberman described Vance as the only Trump adviser who “really vocally took issue with this” when the commander in chief discussed an Iran war, adding that Trump’s reaction “irritated” him and “cost” Vance in the context of their day to day dynamic.

Haberman’s account was framed around the internal debate over whether to pursue a military option involving Iran, with Haberman describing Vance’s opposition as distinctive compared with how other advisers approached Trump’s thinking. The Hill reported that Haberman linked that divergence to how Trump viewed Vance within the group advising him, rather than to any specific public policy dispute.

The reporting comes as the White House has recently highlighted administration efforts to resolve the Iran nuclear challenge through diplomatic channels rather than military action. In a June 19 White House release, the administration said President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Iran, characterizing it as aimed at preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and reopening the Strait of Hormuz for free navigation.

White House materials did not describe the internal origins of the vice president’s Iran position in the way Haberman did in her remarks. The White House release, which emphasized a signed memorandum and its stated objectives, instead presented the effort as a negotiated breakthrough, without detailing how Trump and Vance interacted on the question of military force earlier in the process.

Haberman’s comments underscore a recurring feature of high level foreign policy staffing, where disagreements over the use of force can translate into political and operational friction inside the West Wing. The Hill’s summary of Haberman’s remarks also suggests that the issue was not only about Iran policy at large, but about tone and consistency within the advisory group when Trump weighed military options.

Beyond the reported relationship details, the practical stakes for administration governance hinge on whether internal disagreements affect coordination on foreign policy implementation. The White House’s recent public messaging on an Iran memorandum provides one measure of where the administration says it is headed, but Haberman’s account points to a separate internal track about how counsel against military escalation was received within Trump’s immediate circle.