Pentagon Requests $200 Billion for Iran War

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth
Reuters
By Yuval Rosenberg and Michael Rainey

Good evening. On this date in 2003, President George W. Bush announced in an Oval Office address that American and coalition forces had begun military operations in Iraq. "The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder," Bush said. Six weeks later, Bush would declare that major combat operations had ended and "the United States and our allies have prevailed" in his "Mission Accomplished" speech. U.S. troops fought in Iraq until December 2011.

Here's what's happening today.

Pentagon Requests $200 Billion for Iran War

The Department of Defense is seeking $200 billion in supplemental funding to help pay for the war with Iran.

The Pentagon request, first reported by The Washington Post Wednesday evening, has been shared with the White House, which is reportedly reviewing it before it is submitted formally to Congress. President Trump confirmed the request to reporters on Thursday.

At a news conference Thursday morning, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth defended the request, which is about four times larger than initial reports had forecast and many times larger than the very rough cost estimate of $20 billion for the war so far.

"Obviously, it takes money to kill bad guys," Hegseth said, "so we're going back to Congress and our folks there to ensure that we're properly funded for what's been done, for what we may have to do in the future, ensure that our ammunition is refilled, and not just refilled, but above and beyond."

Hegseth also said that the number could "move," though it wasn't clear if he meant it could be smaller or larger.

Meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, Trump told reporters that the supplemental request is being made "for a lot of reasons," including building up the military in ways that seem to extend beyond the immediate needs of the Iran war. "[I]t's a small price to pay to make sure that we stay tippy top," he said.

Trump has called for a massive increase in military spending in the next fiscal year, saying the defense budget should be $1.5 trillion, a roughly 50% increase.

Questions in Congress: Republican lawmakers were noncommittal as they discussed the request Thursday.

"It remains to be seen," Senate Majority Leader John Thune told CNN about the outlook for the request. "And obviously we haven't seen any of the specifics around it yet. Saw the aggregate number they're proposing, but we're going to need to, obviously, take a look at it."

Republican Sen. Roger Marshall told Fox Business that the request is "a little tall." Defense officials "need to come to ... Capitol Hill and tell us what that money is going to be spent on," he said. "I think we give the Pentagon a trillion dollars a year, you would think that would be enough, but we're going to have to do something."

Sen. Susan Collins, the Maine Republican who leads the Appropriations Committee, said the request is "considerably higher than I would have guessed," but added that she hasn't seen the details.

Another Appropriations Committee member, Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, said she needs to see more engagement by the Trump administration on the war before approving any major requests. "You just can't come up here with an invoice and say, you know, 'pay this' and expect to have great cooperation going forward," she said.

House Speaker Mike Johnson did not rule out the sizeable request, though he said he expects to receive a "detailed and specified" formal request. "So we'll look at that," he said. "But obviously it's a dangerous time in the world and we have to adequately fund defense, and we have a commitment to do that."

Democrats have reservations: Some Democratic lawmakers left no ambiguity about their opposition to the request. "At the height of combat the Iraq War cost around $140 Billion per year," Sen. Ruben Gallego said in a social media post. "If the Pentagon is asking for $200 billion they are asking for a long war. The answer is a simple no."

Rep. Donald Beyer said the request reveals the Trump administration's true priorities. "Donald Trump and Republicans enacted the largest cuts in history to Medicaid and SNAP because the nation simply 'couldn't afford' them," he said on social media. "Now, the Trump Administration is seeking $200 billion to pursue their illegal, poorly planned war of choice against Iran. Absolutely not."

Sen. John Hickenlooper highlighted the nation's budgetary constraints. "That's money that we don't have," he said. "With that kind of money, we can fund universal pre-K in every state in this country. We can get to universal health care coverage. We could have free school meals for every child."

At least one Democrat expressed doubt that such a large bill could pass. "I see no path for approval of spending of that magnitude," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal. "At minimum, we've had to see public hearings on it, and approval from Congress on the war itself."

What's next: The White House needs to formally submit a detailed request to Congress, and if the response from Democrats so far is any indication, it could be in for a rough ride. The Trump administration did not inform Congress about the war before it was launched and has not sought input on its conduct, so lawmakers may end up using the debate over supplemental funding to battle over the uses and abuses of the government's war-making powers.

Senate Panel Advances Mullin Nomination to Lead DHS

Sen. Markwayne Mullin's nomination to head the Department of Homeland Security advanced out of committee on Thursday, putting Trump's pick to replace Kristi Noem on a path to full Senate confirmation by next week.

The nomination moved ahead after a testy Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee hearing on Wednesday that saw Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, the chairman of the panel, criticize Mullin's temperament and "anger issues" based on past incidents. "I just wonder if someone who applauds violence against their political opponents is the right person to lead an agency that has struggled to accept limits to the proper use of force," Paul said. Democrats on the committee also questioned Mullin's temperament and qualifications.

Paul joined with Democrats today in opposing Mullin's confirmation, but Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania backed the nomination to help it advance in an 8-7 vote.

"I truly approached the confirmation of my colleague and friend, Senator Mullin, with an open-mind," Fetterman wrote in a post on X. "We need a leader at DHS. We must reopen DHS. My AYE is rooted in a strong committed, constructive working relationship with Senator Mullin for our nation's security."

Mullins' nomination now heads to the full Senate, where it could get a vote next week. Republicans hold a 53-47 edge in the chamber (though that includes both Mullin and Paul). Only a simple majority will be needed for confirmation.

Quote of the Day

"I'm glad the White House was here, but we are a long ways apart."

− Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, the vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, discussing a private meeting Thursday of a group of senators with Trump border czar Tom Homan, which Politico's Jordain Carney calls "the first sign in weeks of potential momentum" toward a Department of Homeland Security funding deal that would end the partial shutdown that is nearly five weeks old.

The meeting reportedly ended without any breakthrough, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters that the Senate will not break for a planned recess at the end of next week if DHS remains shut down by then.

"We need to get this resolved and it needs to get resolved, you know, by the end of next week," Thune said.

Are You Ready to Actually Retire?

Knowing when to retire is harder than knowing how much to save. The timing depends on what your retirement actually looks like: how long your money needs to last, what you'll spend, and where your income comes from.

When to Retire: A Quick and Easy Planning Guide is built for investors with $1,000,000 or more who are ready to move from saving to planning. Download your free guide and start working through the details.

Download your free guide.

Chart of the Day: A Tariff on Wine

Although some politicians will insist otherwise, economists know that tariffs are taxes paid by importers. The ultimate cost of those tariffs, though, is passed on to some degree to buyers and sellers along the chain of production and consumption. A recent paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research examined the distribution of those costs for a particular product: imported European wine, which was hit with a 25% tariff in 2019 during a trade dispute over public subsidies for Airbus and Boeing.

The researchers found that the tariff raised prices for end consumers, but not before other participants made significant adjustments. In the analysis, a European winemaker dropped its wholesale price by 26 cents after the tariff was imposed, absorbing about 20% of the tariff cost. The U.S importer paid a tariff of $1.19 and, making adjustments to the now higher wholesale price, reduced the markup it charged retailers by 44 cents. Perhaps sensing an opportunity to boost profits, the retailer increased its price by $1.59 - more than the tariff itself.

In other words, even though the producer in Europe cut its price in response to the tariff, consumers ended up paying more than the tariff itself.

Summing up, the researchers wrote: "Our main finding is that the markups along a distribution chain make it possible for the consumer to fully pay for the cost of the tariffs in dollar terms even when the foreign supplier partially absorbs the tariff by lowering its price."

Fiscal News Roundup

Views and Analysis