As the price tag for the U.S.-Iran war grows by the day, the path to paying for the conflict is paved with political peril for Republicans in control of Washington.
The effort will shift into high gear when Congress returns from recess next week. The GOP faces a high-stakes fight to fund the war, including challenges from within their own party as well as from Democrats.
Complicating the path for Republicans is a host of unanswered questions about the war — from costs for the conflict so far to how much the administration wants in additional war funding. The White House has not yet offered detailed breakdowns of either figure, but one estimate by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, has put the cost of the war so far at nearly $30 billion.
And Republicans are on the clock, operating under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which terminates military operations after 60 without congressional approval. (The president can, however, invoke a 30-day extension).
In recent days, a growing number of GOP lawmakers have gone public with their concerns over the war — a range of issues Republican leadership will be forced to address as they face the herculean task of securing new funding.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, slammed President Trump this week for his "incendiary" war remarks and called for a "swift" end to the conflict. Collins, who is facing a tough re-election fight, said she would not vote for ground troops or to extend the conflict past 60 days "unless there is a dramatic change."
"If the president commits boots on the ground, sends ground troops to Iran, I believe that congressional authorization for such action is completely required under the War Powers Act," Collins said in a recent interview. "Or, if the military hostilities last 60 days or more, again, I think that congressional approval is necessary."
Other Senate Republicans have voiced similar concerns about the length of the U.S. commitment in Iran. That includes Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah.
"I will not support ongoing military action beyond a 60-day window without congressional approval," Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah, wrote last week in the Deseret News. "I take this position for two reasons — one is historical, and one is constitutional."
Several moderate members have also said Trump's Iran war faces a time limit without congressional approval, including Sens. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., Todd Young, R-Ind., and Reps. Don Bacon, R-Neb. and Mike Lawler, R-N.Y.
Young said Congress must reengage its oversight and policymaking role if the conflict drags on.
"The President intends for this to be a short operation, but as the conflict develops, I urge Congress to engage in oversight and policymaking, including evaluating any potential requests for additional resources or providing additional authorities," Young said last month when Republicans blocked a Democratic-led Iran war powers vote.
Last month, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, told reporters the administration needs to be more transparent with Congress.
"The administration is going to have to make the case. We're learning through the media what is happening, but we're not getting the public briefings," she said.
A costly war
While lawmakers wait to see how much more money the administration may ask for the war, Republicans face several options for when it comes time to approve new funding. Republicans may try to approve additional money through a supplemental funding proposal. Another option is to pass war funding through the reconciliation process, which would allow Republicans to bypass Democratic opposition.
Last week, the White House asked Congress to approve roughly $1.5 trillion for defense in the 2027 fiscal year, but it's unclear how much of that request would be tied to Iran.
"There is a discussion about a supplemental in the $80 to $100 billion range, and that would cover the cost of the war," said Mark Cancian, a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who has worked on estimates of the war's pricetag.
Cancian says costly weapons systems and damage to U.S. aircraft and military infrastructure are the largest drivers of the estimated $29 billion war so far. The Washington Post recently reported the U.S. has fired more than 850 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles. Cancian notes that's more Tomahawks fired than in any other war in U.S. history, and at $3.6 million a pop.
This, as the U.S. may have lost an estimated $1 billion in military jets and other aircraft, Cancian said. And the dramatic rescue of two U.S. airmen in Iran — which entailed the loss of several of those aircraft — may have cost $500 million.
With razor-thin majorities in both the House and Senate, Republicans cannot afford many defections. Some have already objected to the war outright and are expected to oppose funding.
That includes Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Thomas Massie, both fiscal conservatives from Kentucky. Paul, for example, has co-sponsored Democrat-led measures to limit Trump's war powers in Iran, Venezuela and other conflicts.
Where Democrats stand
Democrats, meanwhile, are aiming to foil the funding push and put Republicans' position on the war repeatedly on the record in an election year. On Thursday, House Democrats unsuccessfully tried to force a vote to limit Trump's war powers in Iran. Next week, both House and Senate Democrats are expected to force additional votes on war powers.
"No president, Democrat or Republican, should take this country to war alone. Not now, not ever," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters this week. "Republicans will once again have the opportunity to join Democrats and end this reckless war of choice. The public must demand that Republicans join with us to approve the War Powers Act."
Many Democrats have sought to link their criticism of the war with another issue expected to dominate on the campaign trail this fall: affordability.
"Gas prices are skyrocketing, the cost of living is out of control and billions of taxpayer dollars are being wasted dropping bombs in Iran, while Republicans refuse to spend a dime to make life more affordable for everyday Americans," said House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.
Aside from direct government costs for the war, U.S. households are expected to face indirect costs on fuel, groceries, travel and more. It's given Democrats more fodder on the campaign trail this year.
Roger Pielke Jr., a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, said the spike in gasoline and diesel prices through April 1st could cost Americans a total $12.1 billion or $92 per household. Pielke estimated jet fuel increases in that same window could also add another $2.2 billion through higher airfares for travelers.
Meanwhile, U.S. farmers could pay an extra $131 million to cover higher fertilizer costs that will also get passed on to food consumers eventually, Pielke said.
"There has been some discussion and debate over the cost of the war to the federal government. Taxpayers pay that and that's real money," Pielke said. "But it turns out that the costs go well beyond that and filter through the economy due to the effects of the war, most visibly on the Strait of Hormuz."
But even as Democrats seek to capitalize on rising costs brought on by the war, the party faces internal divides of its own. Last month, Sen. John Fetterman, D-Penn., and Reps. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, Juan Vargas, D-Calif., and Jared Golden, D-Maine, all voted against limiting Trump's Iran war powers. However, like their GOP colleagues, that support could shift for some after Congress returns next week.
Still, they may not be in a position to stop Republicans' war funding efforts if the GOP stays united behind Trump.
"You already see the Democrats complain vigorously about the lack of transparency that come out of briefings by the Pentagon, saying that there wasn't enough detail. They, of course, complained about the lack of authorization for the use of military force," Cancian said. "And (the costs) will exacerbate that. But as long as the president can hold the Republicans, the Democrats can't do much."
Copyright 2026 NPR
