The Pentagon is asking Congress for another $200 billion for the war on Iran, which is almost a quarter of the annual U.S. defense budget.
Democrats are largely, and predictably, against it .
But what about Republicans? While many say they support the president’s war (and they certainly do not want to allow a vote on it), Republicans in varying degrees embraced the mantle of fiscal conservatism. This supplemental request would be in addition to the more than a trillion approved late last year, including a $150 billion add-on, money that the Pentagon is still struggling to spend?
Honestly for the Freedom Caucus types who have demanded holding the line on deficit spending, this should be a no-brainer, even more so for those who remain unclear as to why the president is waging this war — without Congressional approval — in the first place.
Like deficit hawk Rep. Thomas Massie (R-K.Y.), who has criticized the supplemental (as well as the war), telling CNN, “It begs the question, how long do they plan to be there? What are the goals? Is this the first $200 billion? Does this turn into a trillion?”
Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Col.) also wasn’t having it, telling reporters, “I am so tired of spending money elsewhere. I’m tired of the Industrial War Complex getting our hard-earned tax dollars. I’ve got folks in Colorado who can’t afford to live. We need America First policies right now.”
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) gave a more nuanced view. He defended Trump’s position on Iran but also told Fox News he wanted to know where the money is going. “I like to be consistent. I was consistent about Ukraine. I’m going to be consistent on Iran,” he said . “I want to make sure I know the game plan. We want to know what the result is going to be.”
Roy wasn’t the only Republican who thinks accounting for the spending should accompany any increase.
Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Pa.) said the Pentagon should pass an audit before he could consider backing $200 billion in additional funds. “We’ve known that they haven’t passed an audit in many, many years,” Burlison said. “It’ll give me comfort [...] if they pass an audit, and then I’ll know that at least they’re keeping track of the dollars.” (The Pentagon, in fact, has never passed an audit. )
In the Senate, fiscal hawks Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) of Missouri and Rick Scott (R-Fla.) said they want more details about the war funding request before weighing in on how they would vote.
“I don’t want to get too far over my skis on this, I’d like to see what they actually request,” Hawley said. Moderate Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) seems to be closer to Hawley and Scott, saying that the president would need to explain the need for this additional spending. “You just can’t come up here with an invoice and say, you know, ‘pay this’ and expect to have great cooperation going forward,” she said Wednesday.
“The answer on most of this is, I don’t know,” Murkowski told reporters. “I want to know some of the answers to the questions Alaskans are asking me. I think we need to have open hearings.”
Fellow moderate Susan Collins somewhat echoed Murkowski, “It’s considerably higher than I would have guessed, but I don’t know how it’s broken down.”
The $200 billion Pentagon ask comes as Congress has already spent weeks debating the merits and legality of this war, with almost every Democrat voting to advance resolutions to draw back U.S. military forces and almost every Republican allowing the commander-in-chief to conduct the war on his own accord. Experts are throwing cold water on the entire idea that the Pentagon would need this much money for the war now. Steve Kosiak, a non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute, told RS, “I think the biggest point is that a $200 billion request is pretty clearly not linked to either the costs of the war so far (probably on the order of $15 billion) or the consistently expressed view of the President that the war essentially over, with the Iranian military completely defeated.”
Kosiak also said, “What makes the notion of a $200 billion supplemental all the more questionable and seemingly unhinged, is that Congress already provided the Pentagon with some $154 billion in extra money to be spent over the next several years in the OBBBA (above and beyond what is being provided to DOD in its regular annual budget). That money could in theory be used to cover war costs (though they might need some additional transfer authority).”
Policy Analyst Gabe Murphy at Taxpayers for Common Sense told RS, “Lawmakers are rightly balking at supplemental war funding. The ink is barely dry on the Pentagon's first trillion-dollar budget. A $200 billion supplemental would be a 20 percent kick, so either the Pentagon is using the war as an excuse to grab even more taxpayer dollars, or it's planning for a long-term war. Either way, lawmakers should oppose it.”
He added, “If lawmakers are serious about using their power of the purse to assert their war powers, they should oppose any increase to the Pentagon budget, not just a supplemental.”
Presidential pressure could come in the form of Trump or Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth framing the debate in patriotic or hyperbolic life-or-death terms, in ways that could box Republicans in.
“It takes money to kill bad guys,” the Hegseth told reporters last week. “We’re going back to Congress and folks there to ensure that we’re properly funded for what’s been done, for what we may have to do in the future.”
“Ensure that our ammunition, everything’s refilled, and not just refilled, but above and beyond,” he added.
“As things currently stand, I don't see a supplemental passing,” Murphy said “But in the face of presidential pressure, the real question for lawmakers is will they internalize the lesson that taxpayers are tired of footing the bill for endless war, or will they oppose supplemental war funding but then turn around and vote for the president's proposed $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget.”