Congress should not fund illegal efforts. That sounds like common sense — and yet, the Pentagon wants Congress to approve an additional $200 billion in taxpayer money for the Trump administration’s illegal war in Iran.
Under the Constitution, Congress has the sole power to declare war. The Trump administration launched a new conflict in the Middle East without congressional approval, a clear strategy, or even a basic cost estimate. Sending hundreds of billions more to this war would be more than fiscal mismanagement — it’d be a slap in the face to the people who count on their representatives to keep them safe, champion their interests, and uphold the Constitution.
Before lawmakers rush another massive tranche of taxpayer dollars to an already bloated defense budget, they should ask a far more fundamental question: Why should Congress fund a war that is neither authorized nor popular? Our founders granted Congress the sole authority to declare war for a good reason. Significant military actions should have more than the sole backing of a single leader. As the branch closest to the people, it makes sense to have Congress decide if a war is in the best interest of their constituents, since it’s their lives and their taxpayer dollars on the line. Congress has made no such determination; meanwhile, poll after poll shows Americans do not think this war is in their best interest.
HEGSETH CONFIRMS $200 BILLION PENTAGON REQUEST FOR IRAN WAR
The illegality and unpopularity of this war, in and of themselves, should be enough to deter lawmakers from funneling taxpayers’ hard-earned money toward this effort. But even if Congress did decide to authorize this war, there are still significant questions about whether adding billions more in funding would make strategic or even practical sense.
From a fiscal perspective, it’s not as if the Pentagon is strapped for cash. In fact, it is still determining exactly how it will spend some of its bloated budget, including an additional $152 billion Congress appropriated last year through reconciliation. The Pentagon has a long history of wasting its gargantuan budget on overcomplicated weapons systems that don’t work well and bloated contracts that line the pockets of weapons manufacturing executives. What’s to say this latest infusion won’t repeat history?
Neither policymakers nor the public have been given a clear answer on what this extra funding would be used for — and to date, it’s still unclear what the true cost of this war has been.
Right now, both policymakers and the public are being forced to rely on estimates compiled by outside data aggregators. And even those estimates appear incomplete, as they often omit the enormous costs associated with air and missile defense interceptors such as the Standard Missile, Patriot, and THAAD systems — among the most expensive weapons in the U.S. interceptor arsenal. Appropriating hundreds of billions more without a clear plan for how those funds would be used — or a clear understanding of the price tag of the war thus far — would be a massive waste of taxpayer dollars.
Ultimately, beyond questions of legality and fiscal responsibility, we can’t even say for certain that adding more money to the pot would keep us safe.
Prior to Operation Epic Fury, the United States already had critically low munitions stocks. Officials argue this cash transfusion will rapidly build our capacity in this war. However, America’s defense industry has struggled for years to expand production capacity. In fact, the key missiles needed would likely take more than a year to build. Even if we spent $200 billion just on resupplying these stockpiles, it’s highly unlikely we could produce these weapons at the speed needed to keep our service members safe in this war. Hurrying to spend more money now is like trying to speed up the growth of a tree by planting more seeds. Realistically, the only way to truly protect our troops and preserve our munitions is by ceasing this illegal conflict.
JOHNSON PUSHES RECONCILIATION 2.0 WITH NO CLEAR PLAN AND TRUMP’S FOCUS ELSEWHERE
From a constitutional, fiscal, and national security standpoint, it’s hard to see a scenario in which a $200 billion supplemental would further American interests. If Congress is going to commit the country to ever-increasing military spending, it has an obligation to explain to the American people why those expenditures are necessary and how they serve a clear strategic goal. Right now, that explanation does not exist.
Before Congress appropriates another dollar, the administration must present a coherent plan for the war and a realistic estimate of its costs. And most importantly, Congress must decide whether this war should be happening at all. Absent that, adding billions more to this unauthorized war would represent a profound abdication of congressional responsibility, and endanger the very people that Congress is supposed to protect.
Greg Williams is the director of the Center for Defense Information at the Project On Government Oversight, where he coordinates the development of policies to make U.S. defense more effective and less costly.