Two weeks into the U.S. military campaign against Iran — launched without congressional authorization — the costs are staggering. Estimates put taxpayer exposure at up to $28 billion already, with no clear end in sight. TCS President Steve Ellis sits down with TCS policy analyst Gabe Murphy to break down what we know: the human toll, the daily cost of operations, the shifting justifications from the White House, and what Congress has — and hasn’t — done about it. From the narrow defeat of War Powers resolutions in both chambers to the administration’s reported request for $50 billion in supplemental war funding, Ellis and Murphy examine whether Congress still has the tools to reassert its constitutional war powers authority — and the political will to use them.
Transcript
Announcer:
Welcome to Budget Watchdog All Federal, the podcast dedicated to making sense of the budget spending and tax issues facing the nation. Cut through the partisan rhetoric and talking points for the facts about what’s being talked about, bandied about and pushed to Washington, brought to you by taxpayers for common sense. And now the host of Budget Watchdog AF TCS President Steve Ellis.
Steve Ellis:
Welcome to all American taxpayers seeking common sense. You’ve made it to the right place. For 30 years, TCS, that’s taxpayers for common sense, has served as an independent nonpartisan budget watchdog group based in Washington, DC. We believe in fiscal policy for America that is based on facts. We believe in transparency and accountability because no matter where you are on the political spectrum, no one wants to see their tax dollars wasted. It’s March 2026, and as we promised last week, we’re going to talk about the war with Iran. Late last month, without seeking or obtaining congressional authorization, President Trump ordered the US military to strike Iran. Since then, the US and Israel have been carrying out a sustained bombing campaign that has reportedly killed hundreds of Iranian civilians. Seven US service members have been killed in retaliatory strikes and six more service members were killed when a KC-135 refueling aircraft, a tanker, crashed in Iraq yesterday.
And of course, as the human costs rise, so do the cost of taxpayers. Here to break down those costs, explain how we got here and assess the congressional response as TCS policy analyst, Gabe Murphy. Gabe, welcome to the podcast.
Gabe Murphy:
Thanks for having me on, Steve.
Steve Ellis:
Gabe, as a budget watchdog, we usually start with the cost of taxpayers, but today I think it’s important to start by acknowledging the human toll of the war so far. Can you tell us what we know about that at this point?
Gabe Murphy:
Sure, Steve. So far, as you said, seven US service members have been killed in retaliatory strikes. Six army reservists were killed by an Iranian drone strike in Kuwait and Army Sergeant Benjamin Pennington succumbed to injuries sustained in an Iranian strike against a US base in Saudi Arabia. And now yesterday we know an entire KC-135 crew with six service members aboard, those six service members were killed when their tanker got into an accident with another KC-135, both of which were supporting operations in Iran. The Pentagon also reported this week that about 140 US service members have been wounded during the war so far. Shortly after the initial casualties, President Trump warned that more US troops will likely be killed before the war ends. According to the president, “Sadly, there will likely be more before it ends. That’s the way it is. Likely be more.” And sadly, he was right.
Steve Ellis:
What about the Iranian casualties? What do we know there?
Gabe Murphy:
In addition to the strikes that have killed Iranian leaders and soldiers, reports indicate that US and Israeli strikes have killed over 1,300 Iranian civilians thus far. On the first day of strikes, a girls school in Southern Iran was struck, killing over 175 people, most of whom were students. The president initially claimed that Iran struck the school, but offered no evidence and also acknowledged that the Pentagon was still investigating the strike. Well, officials are now reporting that the preliminary results of the investigation have determined that the US is responsible for that strike. I think it also bears noting that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth previously dramatically reduced the Pentagon office responsible for minimizing civilian casualties, cutting staff from 200 to under 40. Beyond those killed in the strikes, we’ve also seen reports that over 100,000 Iranians have been displaced by the bombing campaign.
Steve Ellis:
And as we know from past experience, all those numbers are likely to grow as long as this war continues. Okay. After that grim reporting, let’s turn now to taxpayer costs. Looking back to last summer when the US first struck Iran’s nuclear facilities, what do we know about the cost of those strikes?
Gabe Murphy:
Right. So that was called Operation Midnight Hammer, and it cost taxpayers over $2 billion. That includes the cost of preparations like evacuating personnel, the cost of flying all the planes involved, the cost of munitions, and the cost of defensive equipment to defend against retaliatory strikes from Iran, which actually made up the bulk of the costs. At the time, the president said that the strikes completely destroyed Iran’s nuclear program, but in this latest round of strikes, the president has cited destroying Iran’s nuclear program as one of many justifications.
Steve Ellis:
And what do we know about the cost of war since this more recent round of strikes?
Gabe Murphy:
We know that before these strikes even began, it cost about $630 million to gather US forces in the region. That’s according to Elaine McCusker, a former Pentagon budget official who served under the first Trump administration. We also know that three F-15 shot down in a friendly fire incident over Kuwait will cost about $300 million to replace. Add in all the planes, ships and munitions, both offensive and defensive involved in the war, and we’re talking billions of dollars.
Steve Ellis:
Well into billions of dollars, and that doesn’t even include some potential costs that we’re hearing about, like the prospect of military escorts for tankers traversing the straight of Hormuz or backstopping the insurance costs of shipping, making its way through the straight. Just so budget watchdog AF Faithful know, the strait of Hormuz is very tight with a more than 90 degree turn that takes shipping close to Iran. And while it is 29 nautical miles wide at its narrowest, shipping is in two mile wide inbound and outbound shipping channels separated by a two mile buffer. So it’s not like the ships can take evasive maneuvers. Iran knows where they’re going to be. That’s also the issue of Iran possibly mining the straight. 20% of the world’s oil goes through the straight, which is why you are seeing prices go up not only at the pump, there are potential longer term costs, like for instance, helping farmers shoulder a major spike in the cost of fertilizer, but back to the cost for the numbers we have so far.
Gabe Murphy:
Right. So one estimate put the cost of the war at over $5 billion, and that was just three days in. Since then, we’ve seen estimates of daily costs ranging from 890 million to $2 billion. As of this taping, we’re 14 days into the war. So those estimates of daily costs, plus the cost of amassing forces will put the total cost somewhere between 13 billion and over $28 billion so far. But the Pentagon also just reported that the first six days of the war cost over 11 billion. So that puts daily costs closer to $2 billion and total costs so far closer to 28 billion, and that’s without putting any boots on the ground.
Steve Ellis:
That’s a lot of numbers, Gabe. So to put these numbers into perspective, $28 billion is more than twice my Coast Guard’s annual discretionary budget, and we’re just two weeks into this. President Trump’s timeline for the war has ranged from a few days, which we’ve already blown past, to four to five weeks, to indefinitely. What does that tell us about the potential long-term cost of this war gate?
Gabe Murphy:
Well, if it takes five weeks, based on those daily cost estimates, we’re looking at $31 billion to over $70 billion in costs, but it could easily go longer. I mean, if you’re not getting a little bit of deja vu here, then you’re probably too young to remember the Iraq war. At the time, Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld assured us that the war would take days, weeks, or maybe months, but not longer. We now know that the Iraq War lasted many years, cost over $2 trillion and claimed the lives of thousands of US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Steve Ellis:
This is before your time at TCS Gate, but we tried to estimate in the early days of the Iraq war what it might cost over a decade time, and our high was $500 billion, and obviously it costs more than four times that amount. But just to be clear, that war started with a large number of ground forces deployed in Iraq, and we occupied Iraq for years on end. We currently don’t have any ground forces in Iran. What has the Trump administration said about the prospect of that?
Gabe Murphy:
Well, they’ve basically refused to rule it out. Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth said, “We’re not going to go into the exercise of what we will or will not do. ” It’s a direct quote. The president was more cavalier about it, saying that the war will continue, “Until all of our objectives are achieved,” and that, “I don’t have the yips with respect to boots on the ground. Like every president says there will be no boots on the ground. I don’t say it. ” While these statements don’t necessarily mean that the US is seriously considering ground troops, the refusal to rule them out is deeply concerning. As unpopular as the deployment of ground forces would be, the administration is starting to recognize that some of the objectives it’s laid out, like dismantling Iran’s nuclear program and ousting the current government may simply not be achievable without a long-term commitment of ground forces.
So I think we need to take the risk of that really seriously. I
Steve Ellis:
Get that, Gabe, but it’s looking to me more and more like the administration is looking for off-ramps. They’ve gone from saying that the president wants to say in picking the leadership in Iran, to that he was merely disappointed that the newly announced Supreme Leader is the son of the past Supreme leader that was killed on the first day of the war. On Wednesday, President Trump told the news outlet Axios that the war will end “soon” since there is “practically nothing left to target.” And as you said, Gabe, the goalposts keeps shifting. Okay, let’s turn to process here and how we ended up in a war that Congress never authorized. Given that the Constitution gave Congress the power to declare war, why didn’t the president seek congressional authorization?
Gabe Murphy:
Well, we’ve gotten a wide range of explanations and rationales from the administration about this war, and some of those actually contradict each other. But as for the specific legal arguments we’ve seen, the closest the administration has come to offering a legal argument is claiming that the strikes were a response to an imminent threat from Iran. Under the War Powers Resolution, the president must receive congressional authorization prior to introducing US armed forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities may be imminent. The main exception to this is in the event of a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions or its armed forces. That obviously did not happen as we struck Iran first. Few dispute, however, that the President has the authority to introduce US forces into hostilities in response to an imminent threat to the United States or its territories or forces.
The War Powers Resolution includes provisions that would automatically terminate such hostilities after 90 days absent congressional authorization, but it’s not clear the administration is prepared to honor that requirement.
Steve Ellis:
So Gabe, what was the imminent threat that the administration identified?
Gabe Murphy:
According to Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, the imminent threat was that we knew Iran would retaliate against US forces in the region if Israel struck Iran. It’s an interesting argument, particularly given that the White House officials were saying just days before the war that the politics of striking Iran would be a lot better if Israel struck first. Comments that I think suggest that the US encouraged Israel to strike, thus creating the imminent threat. But Secretary Rubio has since walked back that earlier assertion to some degree.
Steve Ellis:
Well, partially, I think because it didn’t go over well that Secretary Rubio’s initial assertion implied that Israel directed our war policy.
Gabe Murphy:
Right. I mean, that’s not a good look. The imminent threat argument, I think, is even further undercut by President Trump’s assertions that he started the war because he felt negotiations with Iran weren’t going well and he thought they would strike and that strikes are about destroying Iran’s nuclear program and that they’re about destroying Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities or about regime change. The notion that this was all about responding to an imminent threat starts to look pretty absurd next to all of these other justifications.
Steve Ellis:
Right. I mean, the president literally put a 10-day clock on negotiations not too long ago and said if Iran didn’t agree to US terms by then, “Bad things would happen.” That’s a pretty clear indication that this war was premeditated, not preemptive. Another justification for launching the attack when they did was that the United States and Israel knew that Ayatollah Ali Kamine and his senior military leadership would be meeting above ground at a certain time. Considering the initial attack wiped them out, about 40 individuals, that would seem like a rationale, but not an imminent threat. So Gabe, how has Congress responded to the president committing US service members and billions of taxpayer dollars to this unauthorized war?
Gabe Murphy:
Last week, the Senate and House both voted on war powers resolutions that would have prohibited ongoing military operations against Iran absent explicit congressional authorization. Both of those efforts were narrowly defeated on largely partisan lines. The Senate voted down 53 to 47 while the House measure went down 219 to 212. Some lawmakers though are vowing to continue forcing additional war powers votes, which have a privileged status allowing lawmakers to force these votes in a timely manner. One strategy they’ve articulated around this is that these votes will put pressure on the administration to make commitments, perhaps regarding the timeline or potentially the introduction of ground forces in order to stave off a successful vote. I’ve also heard though that lawmakers say they will keep forcing these votes until the administration comes to Congress and explains its rationale and strategy for the war.
Steve Ellis:
All right. We’ll see if those strategies pan out, but in the meantime, this war is raging, and even if lawmakers do eventually pass an Iran war powers resolution, president can still veto that, right?
Gabe Murphy:
That’s right, Steve. And lawmakers would need a two-third majority in both chambers to overturn such a veto. It’s really a pretty sad state of affairs. I mean, it used to be that when a president wanted to go to war, they would come to Congress seeking either a declaration of war or an authorization for the use of military force or an AUMF. But presidents of both parties have for years now relied on the overly broad and unrestrained 2001 and 2002 AUMFs, which served as the authorizations for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. President Obama, for instance, argued that the 2001 AUMF, which authorized the use of force against the perpetrators of nine eleven or anyone who harbored or aided them, he argued that gave him legal authority to strike ISIS based on the notion that ISIS was tied to Al-Qaeda, but ISIS didn’t exist on nine eleven, so the rationale was, I think, shaky at best.
President Biden also relied on the 2001 AUMF to strike militia groups in Iraq and Syria more than two decades after nine eleven.
Steve Ellis:
And I’m not as old as this, but I do know that President Truman went to war in Korea saying it was a police action and citing UN support. We had similar sort of ways that President Kennedy put troops into Vietnam and then expanded under President Johnson and President Nixon. And so I mean, these actions, this aggressive executive, I mean, that’s part of why the War Powers Resolution was enacted in the 70s was in kind of response to all of these actions. Okay. But enough of that history lesson. I mean, clearly it is presidents of both parties that would like to quickly act and feel like they can do this without getting Congress. And just to look at this administration, which has only been in office a little more than a year, we’ve launched strikes in half a dozen other countries, including Venezuela, before we even detect Iran.
Gabe Murphy:
Right. And I would argue that these latest strikes on Iran go farther than any recent administration has inside stepping congressional authority over war. With the exception of the sustained campaign against ISIS, most of those attacks that we mentioned were very short, hours even. With Iran, we’re talking weeks at least. We’re facing a dynamic here where when wars begin, Congress only weighs in after the fact and now needs a two-thirds majority to stop a war rather than a simple majority to authorize one. It’s a really dangerous place to be and not at all what the Constitution envisions. As we put it in our weekly waste basket this week, congressional authority over the decision to go to war is at death’s store.
Steve Ellis:
So Gabe, is that the ballgame? I mean, do lawmakers have any tools other than the War Powers Act to assert congressional war powers?
Gabe Murphy:
They do, Steve, and it’s a tool we’ve been pushing Congress to reclaim across the board, not just on matters of war. It’s called the Power of the Purse.
Steve Ellis:
Make Congress great again.
Gabe Murphy:
Right. Congress has the power to appropriate funds for the Pentagon as it sees fit. Right now, the Pentagon is using funds previously appropriated to wage an unauthorized war. 259 House and Senate lawmakers just said as much when they voted to support the War Powers Resolution. The question before Congress now is, are they willing to put their money where their mouth is? As the cost of the war spiral, the administration is reportedly considering requesting around $50 billion of supplemental war funding.
Steve Ellis:
That’s right. And we put out a statement last week, urging Congress to reject it. I believe I said, having already abdicated its war powers, Congress cannot afford to abdicate its power of the purse as well and should reject this supplemental. The Pentagon is a wash in cash. Congress just approved an 18% funding boost this year and tucked $153 billion slush fund into the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The Pentagon has plenty of latitude to use funds already appropriated to replenish depleted supplies and munitions. Supplemental war funding will not protect our service members. It will give the appearance of a consent for this unauthorized war.
Gabe Murphy:
Well put, Steve.
Steve Ellis:
Thanks. For our listeners, Gabe, can you explain our thinking here? I mean, whatever your perspective on this war and its legality or lack thereof, some lawmakers have argued that we’re in it now and suggested that failing to support a supplemental could blow back on US service members who were ordered into this war, whether they agreed with it or not. What would you say to that argument?
Gabe Murphy:
Well, first, Steve, I would point out that seeking a swift resolution to the war is probably the best way to protect US service members. Second, while it’s true that our stockpiles of defensive munitions like those used for Patriot and Thad missile defense systems are being depleted, and that the soldiers on basis facing Iranian missile threats deserve the protection of those systems. It’s also true that, as you said, the Pentagon has plenty of funds to replenish those systems without a supplemental funding package.
Steve Ellis:
But to play devil’s advocate here, Gabe, Congress had other plans for those funds, right?
Gabe Murphy:
Well, yes and no. Congress did send the Pentagon some guidance on how it wanted that $153 billion from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act spent, but those plans were far more vague than plans for regular appropriations bills. That’s partly because of restrictions on the budget reconciliation process that limit the inclusion of policy provisions. And it’s also partly because Congress normally relies on the Pentagon to draft a budget, which it then makes adjustments to.
Steve Ellis:
Plus, it’s normally the appropriators writing the Pentagon budget, but Pentagon spending through reconciliation goes through the armed services committees, which don’t have as much experience detailing these type of plans.
Gabe Murphy:
Right. So as a result of all that, funding tables for reconciliation lacked program level details and the whole pot of money is now basically a slush fund. Moreover, many of the broad categories of funding included could be used to cover costs of the Iran war now, like 24 billion for missile defense or 16 billion for scaling low cost weapons or 24 billion for munitions. Given the lack of specificity in congressional guidance and the fact that such guidance isn’t actually binding anyway, the Pentagon has all the latitude it needs to repurpose funding from reconciliation to cover the cost of the war. It also has some general transfer authority through the regular budget on top of that. Bottom line, the notion that this supplemental is needed to support US troops is simply incorrect. It’s really about optics. It’s about manufacturing the appearance of support for the war that was never authorized.
Steve Ellis:
So as a means of asserting its war authority and registering its opposition to the use of taxpayer dollars for an unauthorized war, Congress should reject any supplemental war funding absent an authorization for the use of military force. Is that any more achievable than these war powers resolutions?
Gabe Murphy:
Yes, actually it is. Unlike the war powers resolutions, which effectively need a two-third majority to become law, the Senate generally needs 60 votes to pass contentious spending measures and overcome a filibuster. So if every Senator who voted for the War Powers Resolution votes against supplemental war funding, it won’t pass. Given the Pentagon’s deep pockets, that may not stop the war immediately, but it could make it untenable in the long run, which should help force an end to the war sooner rather than later.
Steve Ellis:
And to be clear, we’re not talking about using taxpayer dollars or the lack thereof to force strategy or to put people in harm’s way. It’s just Congress asserting their authority and being more affirmative about how they want those tax dollars spent. All right, Gabe, beyond the supplemental, will there be other opportunities for Congress to turn to its power of the Pers to weigh in on this war?
Gabe Murphy:
There certainly will be, and they’re actually right around the corner. The President is expected to release his fiscal year 2027 budget request, or at least some form of it in late March. In it, we expect he will follow through on his earlier proposal and formally request a $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget. There’s a long list of reasons why we oppose this massive increase. Adjusted for inflation, the Pentagon’s budget grew by 50% over the first 25 years of this century, and those steady increases led to some of the least reliable weapon systems ever built. I mean, think about the F-35, the literal combat ship, and then its replacement, which was just canceled, the Constellation Class Frigate. A $1.5 trillion request would mark a 42% increase in one year. Approving this increase would mean more waste, more underperforming platforms, and less money for other pressing priorities like disaster response, addressing the rising cost of healthcare premiums, something that the Trump administration has said it wants to do, and fighting food insecurity among children and veterans, which the Trump Administration’s Department of Veterans Affairs notes is a major issue.
These are national security issues too. So in relation to the Iran war, I think approving any increase, let alone such a dramatic one, would be read quite appropriately as tacit support for the Trump administration’s approach to national security, including its unauthorized war with Iran. So rather than greenlighting and other spending spree on the heels of an 18% increase this year, Congress should pump the brakes and pursue cuts to wasteful and unnecessary programs instead.
Steve Ellis:
Right. I mean, we hear all the time about this or that funding need, but Congress hasn’t been willing to take a serious look at cuts to the only federal agency that’s never passed an audit. The Pentagon. Last year, we identified over $60 billion in annual savings that could be achieved with targeted cuts to wasteful Pentagon programs and practices. That’s where the conversation on the budget should start.
Gabe Murphy:
That’s right, Steve. And just to offer a morsel of hope here, I do think that lawmakers are starting to wake up to the reality that this war is already deeply unpopular and that their positions on the Pentagon budget will be viewed in the context of this war. So we may see those positions continue to evolve in a positive direction as these conversations play out.
Steve Ellis:
All right, Gabe Murphy. Thanks for helping us sort through what’s going on in the Middle East, the cost of this war, and the congressional response to it.
Gabe Murphy:
Of course, Steve, thanks for having me on. Well,
Steve Ellis:
There you have a podcast listeners. Less than two weeks into this unauthorized war with Iran, taxpayer costs could be as high as $28 billion, but lawmakers still have options to reign it in if they choose to. This is the frequency, market on your dial, subscribe and share, and know this. Taxpayers for Common Sense has your back America. Read the bills, monitor the earmarks, and highlight those wasteful programs that poorly spent our money and shift long-term risk to taxpayers. We’ll be back with a new episode soon. I hope you’ll meet us right here to learn more.
