Pentagon’s $88B Iran war funding request faces bipartisan pushback

The Pentagon’s massive request for funds to pay some of the costs of the Iran war will be a tough sell for Senate Democrats, and a key issue buried deep in the multibillion-dollar request could divide Republicans.

Congress took up the nearly $88 billion package Wednesday afternoon after months of speculation about whether it would come and exactly how much it would cost. The current price tag is considerably lower than previous estimates, which estimated the package could cost up to $200 billion.

But nearly four months later and after a tenuous peace deal was signed, Democrats appear reluctant to support funding to add ammunition despite sweeteners to attract support.

CLOSED DOOR EXIT TURNS INTO VICTORY IN TRUMP’S IRAN NEGOTIATIONS

“It seems designed to repel Democratic votes,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn. “Obviously they’re not trying to get past that.”

These sweeteners, which included $11 billion to farmers and $1.4 billion to fight the Ebola outbreak in Africa, did not particularly impress Murphy, who claimed farm aid was a “cost of war.”

The package was also disliked by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (DY), who accused President Donald Trump of “asking taxpayers to clean up their mess.”

“After plunging America into a reckless war, he now wants Congress to give him tens of billions more dollars to cover the damage, while families are still paying higher prices,” Schumer told X. “Instead of writing Trump another blank check, we should be reducing costs for the American people.”

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was not surprised that Senate Democrats appeared ready to oppose the package, which would need at least 60 votes to pass the Senate, arguing that they “didn’t support anything this year or last year.”

THE PRICE OF THE IRAN WAR REACHED 80 BILLION DOLLARS — MORE THAN TWICE WHAT WAS LISTED IN CONGRESS

“That’s literally true. I mean, including the things they negotiated,” Hawley said. “FISA, they negotiated it, and I didn’t like it when they negotiated it, but they negotiated it anyway and said ‘No,’ negotiated all the appropriations bills and then said ‘No.’ I mean, I would be shocked if they supported it.”

The bulk of the demand is for the Pentagon, with $67 billion for the War Department; They include $21 billion to replenish missile stockpiles depleted during the Iranian offensive known as Operation Epic Fury, $17 billion for military operations, $2.4 billion for unmanned aerial vehicles, and $5.1 billion for cybersecurity and autonomy.

$12 billion in War Department funding will also be transferred to secret programs. The request also includes $2 billion for the Coast Guard and $800 million for the Homeland Security.

The administration is also seeking $672 million for the removal of Iran’s nuclear materials, inspections and verification efforts, and other counterproliferation activities.

According to the proposal, the funding would support the removal of Iranian nuclear materials, including uranium hexafluoride (UF6), various forms of uranium, and research reactor fuel, including highly enriched uranium.

The proposal would also fund potential U.S. verification activities in Iran, subject to site access, support International Atomic Energy Agency inspections, strengthen nuclear smuggling detection efforts, and expand Nuclear Contingency Support Team operations in the Middle East.

The funding comes as U.S. and Iranian negotiators try to turn the latest memorandum of understanding (MOU) into a more detailed agreement governing Iran’s nuclear program and enriched uranium stockpile.

While the memorandum establishes down-blending as the minimum acceptable method for processing Iran’s enriched uranium, negotiators have not publicly stated whether the material will ultimately remain in Iran, be transferred to another country, or be destroyed.

TRUMP WANTS $672 MILLION TO STOP IRANIAN NUCLEAR SYSTEMS AS NEGOTIATIONS WEIGHT THE FATE OF URANIUM STOCKSHIPS

The price of ethanol-free gasoline is displayed at a gas pump at an Exxon gas station in Austin on May 5, 2026. The Trump administration will remove high-ethanol E15 gasoline from U.S. volatility requirements this summer, boosting sales and benefiting corn farmers and biofuel producers. (Kaylee Greenlee/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

While Democrats are shaking their fists at the additional spending package, a provision added to the bill could cause heartburn for Republicans.

Farm aid provisions include a policy to permanently expand the sale of gasoline with a blend of ethanol, a liquid biofuel derived from corn and known as E15.

The E15 issue showed a rare divide in Senate Republican leadership and a rippling divide in the Senate GOP based on geography.

“Promising a year-round E15 mandate is a check the president can’t cash,” a Republican source said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R.S.D.) supports it because of the benefits it could bring to candidates running for election or re-election, especially in states where corn crops are king.

But his second-in-command, Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), rejected the House’s year-round E15 bill last month, arguing that a mandate on fuel blending would hurt small refineries and undo steps taken toward energy production in Trump’s flagship legislation, the “big, beautiful bill.”

“America’s small refineries are the unsung heroes of affordable American energy. Washington DC often ignores them. Working families depend on them,” Barrasso said on the Senate floor earlier this week. “I represent several small refineries in Wyoming. The refineries employ thousands of people.”

CLICK TO DOWNLOAD FOX NEWS APPLICATION

“They make gas prices more affordable,” he continued. “They strengthen our nation’s energy security. Proposed new mandates for small refineries will hurt them and the people who work for them.”

Since the House bill was passed, Thune said he has continued discussions to find a “path forward” on the issue.

“We are working with the stakeholder community and our members on both sides to understand if this is something we can implement and complete,” Thune said.

Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., a proponent of this provision, argued that he saw it as an “incentive” but acknowledged there was a chance it could be removed from the broader supplemental package.

“I mean, that would be a better deal, and I don’t know why they would want to cancel the deal,” Rounds said.