03.12.26 - What the war with Iran could have paid for at home & what to watch next
The Pentagon informed Congress on Tuesday that the U.S.-Israel war with Iran cost more than $11.3 billion just in its first six days. Below, I’ll run down what that money could have covered at home and what we know about a looming Pentagon request for more money to conduct this deadly and unauthorized war.
For more background, check out last week’s updates:
What taxpayer dollars could have paid for instead of six days of war
The war with Iran has already taken a devastating human toll, killing seven U.S. servicemembers and more than 1,200 Iranians—including at least 175 people, mostly children, at an Iranian elementary school struck by the United States, according to a preliminary investigation. Across the region, the war has killed hundreds more and displaced more than 800,000.
The war also cost American taxpayers more than $11.3 billion just in its first six days. As the conflict approaches the two-week mark, analysts have dug into what this $11.3 billion could have paid for instead. That includes:
Medicaid coverage for about 1.53 million people for one year, based on the U.S. average spending per enrollee in 2023.
Salaries for about 162,000 teachers for a year, at the 2024 national average teacher salary of $69,597.
Food assistance for about 5 million people for a year under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), using the average daily SNAP benefit per person in Fiscal Year (FY) 2025.
More than the annual budget for cancer research at the National Cancer Institute, currently funded at $7.35 billion for FY 2026.
A request for more money is coming
President Trump plans to ask Congress for extra money—possibly $50 billion—to conduct this war, though lawmakers have yet to receive an official request. GOP leaders are reportedly considering how they’d garner sufficient votes for this funding, which would need 60 senators’ support to pass—meaning, it needs some Democratic support. While a few Senate Democrats left the door to a “yes” vote open, others are an emphatic “no.”
Republicans have floated a few ways to improve a supplemental’s chances, including attaching extra money for farmers harmed by the President’s tariffs and California wildfire relief. They’ve even discussed the arduous reconciliation process Republicans used to pass last year’s budget law, which skirts the 60-vote threshold in the Senate and prevents Democrats from blocking the measure.
Why this funding request matters
Ultimately, as I explained last week, Congress has fairly limited options for stopping this war that the President launched with no timeline or objectives presented to the American people and no vote to declare war in Congress, as the Constitution requires. A funding request is perhaps Congress’ best opportunity to have an impact, because voting against more money for war doesn’t just indicate Members’ positions on-the-record—in sufficient numbers, Members could actually deny the President funds to prolong the war.
We’ll keep you posted as more information emerges.
If you’d like a live update for your group or coalition, reach out to catherine@webuildprogress.org. Thanks!