A month into the war with Iran — and just a couple weeks away from the war’s supposed end — President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to ask Congress for a staggering $200 billion for a Pentagon supplemental.
Lawmakers in both parties are skeptical, and they’re already asking questions about the war’s financial cost, its human toll and its political risk.
Among Republicans, frustration is bubbling up about a lack of transparency. There’s also growing heartburn about the rumored price tag, which conservatives hope to offset with cuts to other — mostly unspecified — programs.
And even the more hawkish Democrats, meanwhile, see the funding request as a proxy vote to authorize the war.
All in all, the funding proposal may be among Trump’s most brazen demands yet of loyalty from his Capitol Hill allies.
Typically, a funding request would require bipartisan support in Congress, thanks to the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster threshold. But potential Democratic allies have been unimpressed with the Trump administration’s communication.
Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, who voted against a war powers resolution to limit Trump’s authority to conduct strikes in Iran, told MS NOW he wants more details on the administration’s plans before he votes to provide extra funds for the military.
“Before considering any new package, the administration would need to clearly outline the mission, strategy, and use of existing resources,” Cuellar said in a statement.
Cuellar, a member of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, said the panel has “given the administration ample time, but we’re not receiving answers to our questions on necessary details.”
“Congress needs to weigh in with another vote,” Cuellar said.
Rep. Greg Landsman, D-Ohio, who also sided with most Republicans in opposing the war powers resolution, told MS NOW he won’t support an Iran funding request “that includes anything other than what’s needed to back fill munitions.”
And Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., the top Democrat on the Senate subcommittee that funds the Department of Defense, is also skeptical.
“Sen. Coons will not support any supplemental as a backdoor of authorizing the war in Iran and continues to insist on open hearings with Administration officials about this war before Congress considers additional defense spending,” a spokesperson told MS NOW.
Importantly, a 2000 Justice Department memo pertaining to the Kosovo conflict found that Congress’ decision to approve supplemental funds for military operations amounted to “authorization for continuing hostilities.” Congress so far has not voted to authorize action against Iran.
The Democratic opposition is especially vexing for Trump. Even GOP loyalists have increasingly asked for details about the costs of the war, not to mention libertarians who have opposed the strikes from the start.
“If our troops need more money, I want to give it to them, but I want to see the details,” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told reporters. “You gotta show me the candy before I’ll get in that car.”
The Trump administration has pitched allies on Capitol Hill about an Iran operation that lasts weeks, not months, and doesn’t involve U.S. boots on the ground. Lawmakers may interpret an expansive funding request as a warning that the war — including the death toll and the rising gas prices — won’t end quickly.
“It begs the question, how long do they expect the war to go on?” Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., told reporters. “If it’s been about a billion dollars a day and they want 200 billion, my quick math says they think it’ll go on at least six months.”
There’s an option for Republicans to fund the war in Iran without Democratic votes: reconciliation. That budget process allows the GOP to forgo the filibuster, but it would likely involve lumping the Iran funds in with other stalled Republican priorities, including a bill to require proof of citizenship to vote. That bill faces its own political hurdles.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said he wants an upcoming reconciliation bill to be narrowly focused on funding portions of the Department of Homeland Security, signalling opposition to a quick vote on military funds.
In order to rally a nearly unanimous GOP vote in both chambers, leaders would have to placate conservatives, who have said they want the cost of the spending proposal to be fully offset by spending cuts elsewhere.
Recommended
Where exactly would those savings come from? That’s to be determined.
House Budget Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, told Fox Business on Monday he wants to cut spending on “70-plus means-tested welfare programs,” though he didn’t outline specific savings.
“We have a war on a nuclear Iran that could be paid for by the president’s war on fraud,” Arrington said.
Republicans already scraped the bottom of the barrel for offsetting spending cuts when they passed last year’s more than $4 trillion reconciliation bill. Arrington later told reporters he wanted a subsequent reconciliation bill to include a reworked provision to get states to kick undocumented immigrants off Medicaid, a provision the Senate parliamentarian rejected the first time.
An Axios report suggesting Republicans may turn to cutting federal health spending to help pay for the war has already sparked outrage from Democrats — as well as opposition from some Republicans.
“After ripping away health care from millions of Americans with their Big Ugly Law, Trump and Republicans want to cut your health care EVEN MORE to pay for Trump’s reckless and costly war in Iran,” Rep. Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., posted on social media.
“What happened to putting ‘America First’?” he added.
Former Rep. Mike Rogers, the Republican now running for Senate in Michigan, responded to the report by saying that, “While I’m all for cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, this is a bridge too far.”
More cuts to health care — on top of the trillion dollar Medicaid cuts included in last year’s reconciliation package and the GOP’s decision not to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies at the start of 2026 — could prove politically perilous for Republicans ahead of the midterms.
Other conservatives have insisted on offsetting spending cuts, without identifying clear examples.
“I want everything paid for,” Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., told MS NOW last week. “I want everything — I think everything up here has to be paid for.”
When asked how he would like to pay for the Iran funds, Scott simply said lawmakers just had to “find other savings.”
Other self-proclaimed fiscal hawks in the GOP — who aren’t as predisposed to support Trump — present more problems.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told reporters he opposes the war with Iran and doesn’t plan to support a bill to fund it. Whether or not a supplemental is passed through reconciliation, Paul said he expects the Pentagon funds to be tied to billions of dollars in other spending, and said he doesn’t take GOP promises of offsets seriously.
“They’re talking about $200 billion for the military, another $25 billion for farm subsidies, and another $25 billion for disasters,” Paul told reporters. “So they’re talking about an enormous bill. And I think the biggest threat to our national security is not Iran; I think it’s our national debt.”
Jack Fitzpatrick covers Congress for MS NOW. He previously reported for Bloomberg Government, Morning Consult and National Journal. He has bachelor's and master's degrees from Arizona State University.
Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.