The administration of President Donald Trump is reportedly weighing a massive new war funding request by the Pentagon exceeding $200 billion, as the cost of the escalating conflict with Iran continues to rise sharply.
According to The Washington Post, the United States Department of War has formally asked the White House to approve the proposal before submitting it to Congress—an extraordinary figure that is already facing scepticism within the administration and on Capitol Hill.
One senior administration official cited in the report said the request may struggle to pass, noting that “it does not have a realistic shot” given growing resistance among lawmakers.
The proposed $200 billion request is still under review at the White House, with no official confirmation on whether President Trump has approved the submission to Congress. Similarly, the U.S. Department of War has not publicly confirmed the reported figure.
The Kenya Times sought official comment from both the White House and the Pentagon to clarify the reported $200 billion request. No response had been received at the time of publishing.
Expensive weapons and sustained operations
Pentagon officials told lawmakers in a closed-door briefing last week that the conflict had already cost more than $11.3 billion in just the first six days, according to multiple sources familiar with the discussions.
Officials acknowledged that it does not include key expenses, such as pre-war troop deployments and equipment positioning, long-term operational and logistical costs, and replacement of expended munitions.
Separate briefings indicated that $5.6 billion worth of munitions were used in just the first two days of the campaign, underscoring the intensity of the early strikes.
Analysts say the real cost could be significantly higher. Estimates from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) suggest the first 100 hours alone may have cost $3.7 billion, or nearly $900 million per day.
The high burn rate is driven by the use of advanced weaponry, including precision-guided munitions and long-range strike systems.
Weapons such as the AGM-154 glide bomb—costing up to $836,000 per unit—have been deployed, alongside more expensive systems like Tomahawk cruise missiles, which can cost around $2.5 million each.
Military planners are now expected to shift toward lower-cost alternatives where possible, but officials say sustained operations across multiple theatres are likely to keep expenses elevated.
“In theory, Congress could redirect some of the $153 billion from the reconciliation bill toward Operation Epic Fury, but that would undermine the concept behind the increase: to build capability, not pay existing bills,” notes CSIS in its report.
Trump facing political resistance
The proposed funding package is encountering strong political pushback from both sides of the aisle, even before reaching Congress.
Republican lawmaker Marjorie Taylor Greene this week criticised the scale of the spending, accusing colleagues of prioritising overseas military campaigns over domestic needs.
In a post on X, she argued that lawmakers were preparing to advance tens of billions in war funding while struggling to secure financing for homeland security.
“This is absolutely America last,” she said, framing the proposal as inconsistent with the party’s stated priorities.
Democrats have raised separate concerns, focusing on oversight and the broader justification for the war.
Senator Cory Booker said Congress has conducted “no oversight whatsoever” despite billions already being spent, warning against approving additional funds without a clearer strategy.
Earlier funding proposals already contested
The latest $200 billion request would dwarf earlier figures that had already sparked controversy.
Just days earlier, Senator Elizabeth Warren publicly rejected reports of a $50 billion funding proposal, arguing that the government should instead direct such resources toward domestic priorities like healthcare.
“I’m a hard NO,” she said, warning that approving the funds would come at the expense of struggling Americans.
The criticism highlights a widening divide in Washington over both the cost and purpose of the military campaign.
Despite the urgency of the request, lawmakers say the proposal is still being assembled and may take time to reach Capitol Hill.
Roger Wicker, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, indicated that even once submitted, the process could take weeks or months to move forward.
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.