Republicans confront the massive cost of Trump’s Middle East war

 

Republicans confront the massive cost of Trump’s Middle East war

 

The prospect of a ballooning new spending bill has GOP leaders bracing for a messy internal fight.

 

By Meredith Lee Hill

03/06/2026 04:45 AM EST

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/06/iran-war-cost-congress-republicans-00816079

 

Republicans on Capitol Hill are preparing to confront a staggering price tag for the war in the Middle East after closed-door briefings this week detailed the rapid consumption of expensive munitions and the lack of any firm deadline for the end of the military campaign.

 

Asked how much the Iran offensive would cost, House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) didn’t sugarcoat it.

 

“A lot,” he replied.

 

Senior Republicans privately expect President Donald Trump’s administration to request tens of billions of dollars for the Middle East conflict and other military needs from Congress in the coming days, with some GOP lawmakers hearing estimates that the Pentagon is spending as much as $2 billion a day on the war.

 

Three F-15E jets shot down by friendly fire in Kuwait are estimated to cost $100 million alone. But Trump officials in private briefings have declined to give lawmakers any specific numbers, according to six congressional Republicans granted anonymity to describe the internal discussions.

 

A White House request for supplemental funding could further balloon once it hits Capitol Hill, according to four other people with direct knowledge of the matter. Farm-state Republicans want an additional $15 billion in tariff relief for farmers, while others float adding tens of billions of dollars in wildfire aid to get enough Democratic support to pass the massive bill.

 

The prospect of a growing new spending measure has GOP leaders bracing for a messy internal fight, with fiscal hawks who have long decried “forever wars” and bloated Pentagon budgets deeply unsettled by some of the cost estimates flying around on Capitol Hill. At the very least, some are planning to demand offsetting spending cuts.

 

“I haven’t seen any specifics … but if it’s unpaid-for, I generally have an issue,” Rep. Russ Fulcher (R-Idaho) said.

 

 

 

 

 

Another House Republican granted anonymity to describe the conversations among GOP hard-liners said, “It’s not a ‘hell no,’ but it should be offset somehow.”

 

The topic is now looming over next week’s House Republican policy retreat, which kicks off Monday with a speech from Trump at the president’s resort in Doral, Florida. If the administration sends its formal funding request in the coming days, House GOP leaders will be forced to confront the issue head on.

 

At least some are expressing unqualified early support for any administration request. House Foreign Affairs Chair Brian Mast (R-Fla.), for instance, said in an interview this week he is ready to support an emergency funding bill spending tens of billions of dollars on the Iran operation alone.

 

That sentiment could be challenged by the congressional Republicans who are privately wary of the open-ended timeline and shifting rationales for the war. One House Republican recently remarked that Trump’s pledge to do “whatever” it takes, including entertaining boots on the ground, sounded like “President Lyndon Johnson going into Vietnam.”

 

Rep. Ryan Mackenzie, a vulnerable Pennsylvania Republican, noted that “as much as we need to neutralize their capabilities to continue to attack us, we do also need to make sure that we don’t get dragged into a forever war.”

 

Asked in an interview if Congress is ready to approve a $50 billion Pentagon funding package, Speaker Mike Johnson replied that he didn’t know the specific number yet but Congress would pass the bill “when it’s appropriate and get it right.”

 

“We’re waiting on the White House and [the Pentagon] to let us know, but we have an open dialogue about it,” Johnson said.

 

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, who is attuned to the spending concerns among the fiscal hawks inside the GOP ranks, demurred when asked about the potential for a $50 billion package.

 

“We’re still just in the first few days of this conflict, and there’s no ask yet from the Department of War for a supplemental,” Scalise said in an interview Wednesday.

 

He referenced the laborious talks ahead: “When that time comes, we’ll obviously have very serious conversations, because it’s important that the Department of War have the tools they need to keep America safe.”

 

A bigger potential headache is brewing for Johnson as members of his conference debate whether additional military funding should go in a much-discussed but long-shot budget reconciliation bill. That could move to Trump’s desk along party lines without Democratic support, but only if Republicans are almost completely unified.

 

House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) said in an interview this week he expected the chamber to move forward on an initial emergency funding bill but that a second filibuster-skirting megabill could contain additional Pentagon spending, along with some possible offsetting cuts.

 

“It’s not just for the current conflict,” Arrington said. “There are things that need to be retooled fundamentally at the Defense Department, and the president’s team is making a really good case for that.”

 

Rep. Ralph Norman, one GOP hard-liner who has objected in the past to big Pentagon budgets, now says he would “absolutely” support a $50 billion bill without offsets.

 

“I don’t like it, but with what this president’s doing with income — the GDP is increasing, the money he’s bringing in for other investments — to handicap him on that, that’s a problem,” said Norman, who is running for South Carolina governor and seeking Trump’s support.

 

In the Senate, some GOP appropriators are cautioning that any war funding bill will be a big lift — and warning the administration to get specific, and fast.

 

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), a senior member of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, said the “administration should not be taking anything for granted.”

 

“If they come to us at the end of the month and say, ‘This is what we want, and basically, deliver the votes’ … it’s not a winning strategy, in my view,” she said. “You’ve got to start making the case.”

 

Katherine Tully-McManus and Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.