On day one of the war, Trump posted on Truth Social that the bombing would continue throughout the week, "or as long as necessary." On day two, he said it would last "until all of our objectives are achieved." On day three he told the New York Times four to five weeks. Then he told the Daily Mail four weeks or less. Then he told NPR it could go far longer. On day five, Hegseth told Pentagon reporters it could be four weeks, six weeks, eight weeks, or three — "ultimately, we set the pace and the tempo." On day seven, Trump posted on Truth Social: "There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!" On day ten he told a reporter it would be over "soon. Very soon." On day eleven, he told a Medal of Honor ceremony at the White House that the war was "substantially ahead of schedule" while simultaneously saying "we’ve got to finish the job." On day thirteen he said "we’ve already won in many ways, but we haven’t won enough." Asked if the war was beginning or complete, he said: "Well, I think you could say both."
On day twenty-one, the Pentagon asked Congress for $200 billion.
Two hundred billion dollars is not a victory lap number. It is not a "we’re wrapping this up" number. It is not a number you request when the enemy has no navy, no air force, no air defenses, and a nuclear program that has been obliterated twice. Two hundred billion dollars is the number you ask for when you are planning a long war — when your munitions are burning through faster than anyone publicly admitted, when your objectives keep changing because you didn’t define them clearly before the first bomb dropped, and when the people in charge have no intention of answering the question what does winning actually look like.
The Iraq War, at the absolute height of the surge — the most expensive sustained military campaign the United States had conducted since Vietnam — cost roughly $140 billion a year. Senator Ruben Gallego, an Iraq War veteran who knows what a long war’s price tag looks like, said it plainly the night the number broke: "If Trump wants $200 billion, that means he believes we might be in a war with Iran for a very, very long time." Senator Chuck Schumer said the same: "Two hundred billion is more than what we spent even at the height of the war in Iraq." The first six days of Operation Epic Fury cost $11.3 billion — and that’s the Pentagon’s own undercount, as it doesn’t include the cost of moving troops and equipment. At that pace, $200 billion funds roughly 106 days of war. That is not a short-term excursion. That is a campaign. That is the architecture of something that does not end soon.
Trump, asked why the Pentagon needed so much money, said: "We’re asking for a lot of reasons, beyond even what we’re talking about in Iran." He then said the world is very volatile, that he wants vast amounts of ammunition, and that Lockheed Martin and Raytheon are "building at a level they’ve never seen before." That last sentence is the most honest thing he said. Defense contractors are having a historic quarter. Raytheon’s parent company RTX saw its stock jump 11% in the week after the war began. Lockheed Martin’s went up 7%. Northrop Grumman, which makes the B-2 bombers doing the bulk of the heavy work over Iran, climbed 9%. The $200 billion request, if granted, ensures that trajectory continues. Linda Bilmes, a Harvard economist who has studied the long-term costs of war for two decades, told The Intercept bluntly: a new war makes it more likely Congress approves a bigger Pentagon budget going forward. "That becomes the base budget," she said, "and over a decade, it’s another trillion dollars added to the defense budget." The ask isn’t just for this war. The ask is for the next decade of Pentagon spending, packaged inside an emergency request that nobody in the Republican Party wants to be seen voting against.
This is on top of a record-setting $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget request already submitted for fiscal year 2027, and on top of the $150 billion in additional Defense Department funding Congress already approved in last year’s tax-cuts bill. The United States national debt, the Treasury Department announced this week, has reached a record $39 trillion. Trump spent his entire 2024 campaign promising to cut government spending. Elon Musk’s DOGE operation has spent months loudly slashing Medicaid, education, housing assistance, and federal worker salaries in the name of fiscal responsibility. The same week DOGE celebrated cutting a school lunch program serving 400,000 low-income children, the Pentagon sent a $200 billion war bill to the White House.
The request has not yet been formally submitted to Congress, and the reception on the Hill is making clear that even the people who control both chambers are not prepared to write a blank check. Speaker Mike Johnson, asked about the $200 billion, said it was "not a random number" and that Congress had a commitment to fund defense adequately. He did not say yes. Senator Lisa Murkowski said she needed to know how the money would be spent, how long the war would last, and what the exit looked like — and admitted: "The answer on most of this is, I don’t know." Republican Chip Roy, who supported Trump’s initial strike, said he couldn’t support the ask without a game plan. "The American people don’t want to be involved in a long-term war," Roy said. "$200 billion is a lot of money. He needs to come and tell us, is this to replace munitions? Rebuild our stockpile? Or are we talking about a long-term engagement?"
Those are the Republicans. The Democrats are not going to provide the votes to make up for the ones the administration loses from its own caucus, and they have made that clear in terms that leave no room for interpretation. Representative Betty McCollum, ranking Democrat on the House defense appropriations subcommittee, said: "The President chose on his own to go to war with Iran and spend very expensive munitions, and then turns around and says to Congress: Oh, here’s the bill. That’s not how it works." House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called the war "a reckless war of choice" and said Congress’s responsibility right now was to end it, not fund it. Jeffries noted that while the administration was asking for $200 billion for a war nobody voted for, Americans were watching housing costs, healthcare costs, grocery costs, and childcare costs continue to climb without any corresponding urgency from the people spending $1 billion a day on bombs.
The administration’s plan to get around the bipartisan resistance is to run the funding through budget reconciliation — the same procedural maneuver that lets Republicans pass legislation without Democratic votes. But reconciliation requires near-unanimous support from House Republicans, and with a slim majority and a growing number of fiscal hawks who are genuinely uncomfortable with the price tag, that math is not simple. Reconciliation also requires a budget resolution framework, and the House and Senate are still negotiating the contours of the reconciliation package already in progress. Jamming a $200 billion war supplemental into that process while simultaneously trying to pass the administration’s tax and spending priorities is a legislative challenge that several Republican members, speaking privately to Axios and Politico this week, described as a serious problem.
Senator Murphy captured the underlying question the request forces into the open: "$200 billion is 20 percent of the Pentagon’s budget this year. This is much more than the direct cost of the war so far, and likely more than will be needed anytime soon. This request begs the question: Is the Pentagon just trying to pad its already-massive budget, or is the administration planning for a protracted war?" Those are the only two options. There is no third door. Either the number is inflated beyond operational necessity to lock in a higher baseline for future military spending — which is what Linda Bilmes at Harvard says it will effectively do regardless of intent — or the administration knows this war is going to last much longer than anything they’ve said publicly and is beginning to price it out. Either way, someone is not telling Congress, the American public, or the thirteen families who buried service members this month the truth about what they’re actually building.
Trump posted on Truth Social yesterday that the United States is "getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts." Asked the same day if he would accept a ceasefire, he said: "I don’t want to do a ceasefire." The USS Boxer, carrying thousands of Marines, left California for the Persian Gulf this week. The administration said it did not plan to send ground troops. Trump told a reporter: "If I were, I certainly wouldn’t tell you."
The war is almost over. The war has no timeline. We’ve already won. We’ve got to finish the job. It’ll cost four weeks of money. Please give us $200 billion. We’re winding down. Here come the Marines.
Congress never authorized this war. The administration never asked them to. And now the bill has arrived — $200 billion, no plan attached, no objectives defined, no exit explained — and the same Congress that couldn’t be bothered to assert its constitutional authority when the bombs were falling is being asked to pay for whatever comes next.
Lindsey Graham, as ever, already said yes. "Nobody asked what it cost to win World War II," he told reporters.
Nobody had to. Congress declared that one.
Next in the Obliterated series: Vladimir Putin didn’t start this war. He didn’t have to. (Part Four: The Winner)
Add comment
Comments