Congress

Republicans balk at going it alone on Iran war funding

Published

6 months ago

March 19, 2026

Congressional Republicans are confronting serious doubts they can pass Iran war funding on their own, especially as the potential price tag balloons into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

The alternative — relying on a handful of Democrats to push it through the Senate — doesn’t look any more likely as Middle East hostilities expand, energy prices rise and more Democratic lawmakers dig in against an unpopular war.

In recent weeks, some in the GOP floated using the party-line budget reconciliation process to give the Pentagon a slug of new money without needing to gather 60 votes in the Senate. But the revelation that a war funding request could reach $200 billion has quickly cooled those hopes, given the political complications of finding offsets for the spending and the procedural gyrations it would require.

“It’s such a contortion to make things fit in reconciliation that there’s probably a preference for regular order,” Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said in an interview.

The fresh doubts come on top of long-running warnings from at-risk Republican lawmakers that pursuing another party-line bill could force them into a politically painful position in the months ahead of the midterms. Spending tens or hundreds of billions of dollars on the war could lead Republicans to further slash safety-net programs as they did in last year’s “big, beautiful bill” — creating a messaging bonanza for Democrats.

“It’s not going to happen,” one House Republican, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said of a second reconciliation bill. “Certain people have to talk about it as a possibility and keep the issue alive.”

But many House Republicans argue that a party-line bill is the only viable option to deliver the war funding President Donald Trump wants.

As they quietly consider whether to send more U.S. troops to the Middle East, Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth each declined Thursday to dispute reports that the Pentagon is seeking a $200 billion request after it was first reported by the Washington Post.

“It’s a small price to pay to make sure that we stay tippy-top,” the president said in the Oval Office, adding that the military needs “vast amounts of ammunition” to fulfill its mission in Iran and elsewhere around the globe.

House GOP leaders and committee chairs discussed the possibility of adding military funding to a potential party-line bill during a closed-door meeting at their policy retreat in Florida last week.

“Can we accomplish his priorities in regular order in appropriations? I think it would be unlikely, because I don’t think Democrats are interested in supporting military spending right now,” House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), a longtime reconciliation cheerleader, said in an interview this week.

At the moment, “unlikely” is underselling the depth of Democrats’ aversion to funding the war. Even those senators who aren’t summarily ruling out support for an emergency funding bill say they would not possibly entertain it under the current circumstances.

“I’ve got to see the details,” said Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats. “To be honest, it’s going to be hard for me to support it because I think this war was a mistake, wasn’t justified, hasn’t been supported by the Congress.”

The sky-high $200 billion figure — which exceeds the Pentagon funding in last year’s GOP reconciliation bill and is higher than any supplemental funding bill enacted in the post-9/11 era — has some Republican hard-liners eager to pursue another budget reconciliation bill. Many argue it would pave the way for big cuts to domestic spending they oppose, including potentially Medicaid and other social programs.

“It would be very difficult to pass a very large supplemental without it being paid for,” said Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), chair of the House Freedom Caucus. “There are hundreds of billions of dollars we can still save in fraud, waste and abuse in reconciliation.”

Senate GOP appropriators are hoping to build bipartisan buy-in for Pentagon funding and see disaster aid and farm assistance as potential sweeteners for Democrats. Others are now floating attaching Ukraine aid, something with broad Democratic support and uneven GOP buy-in.

Still others, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), simply want to dare Democrats to vote against funding the military. “I’d hate to be the senator who denied the request … because you’ve got troops in harm’s way,” he said.

So far, most Democrats do not appear to be cowed by the threats or interested in horse-trading.

“Look, pinning us against our own interests isn’t something I’ll support,” said Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), a strong advocate for Ukraine aid.

House GOP leaders declined to tip their hand Thursday as they awaited a formal request from the White House, as well as Trump’s fiscal 2027 budget plan. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said war funding would be a matter of “negotiation” at some point, “but it hasn’t started yet.”

House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) cautioned that the discussions are “all speculative” for the time being while acknowledging reconciliation “might be the only way” to get Pentagon money through the Senate.

Across the Capitol, top Senate Republicans aren’t yet seriously considering trying to pass war funding on party lines — underscoring the longstanding split between House and Senate GOP leaders over how far they should go to pursue an election-year reconciliation bill.

The reticence among some Senate Republicans, according to three people granted anonymity to disclose private thinking, is that there isn’t yet a clear proposal that could get 50 GOP votes. Conservatives, they say, are floating an array of proposals that don’t have broader buy-in and could run afoul of the Senate’s strict reconciliation guidelines. And they expect a second bill would reopen the party’s old wounds over offsetting spending cuts.

“I’ll try and insist that we pay for it,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), one of the party’s loudest deficit hawks.

But without a party-line package, Senate Republicans will have to convince enough Democrats to reach the 60-vote threshold, and they appear to be nowhere close.

“This administration needs to tell Congress definitely what they’re doing and how long this is going to take,” said Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the top Appropriations Democrat. “We’re not going to write them a blank check.”

Katherine Tully-McManus and Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.

Congress

Urgent motion filed to stop carving of Trump’s name into US Institute of Peace building

Published

2 hours ago

September 18, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Ousted board members of the U.S. Institute of Peace are asking a federal court to block the imminent carving of President Donald Trump’s name on the headquarters of the nonpartisan institution he sought to dismantle shortly after taking office.

Members of the board who were removed by the administration filed an emergency motion Thursday in Washington in a dispute that has echoes of Trump’s effort to place his name on the Kennedy Center.

The motion was filed as an emergency petition, alleging that a contractor has already been selected to carve Trump’s name into the Constitution Avenue headquarters that the administration sought to shutter as part of the Elon Musk-led DOGE effort to shrink the government.

The former board members said in their motion that they had asked Kenneth Jackson, the DOGE official serving as acting president of the USIP, to ensure the carving would not happen as they pursue litigation to preserve an independent nonprofit created by Congress under President Ronald Reagan to provide research and training aimed at promoting democracy around the world.

“The building — which was largely funded by private donations to USIP as a tax exempt nonprofit corporation — is a work of expressive architecture designed to be ‘symbolic of USIP’s’ independent ‘mission,’” the emergency motion said. “Alteration of the design to impose a different message would cause irreparable harm.”

Trump’s name was added to the exterior of the building in December, shortly before the president hosted a signing ceremony at the institute with the presidents of Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The bolted-on affixture is removable, and is featured next to the institute’s name, which is engraved into the facade.

The institute has been locked in a legal battle with the Trump administration as it hopes to reinstate its former president ousted by Trump last year. In May 2025, a federal judge ruled that the administration’s actions to dismantle the nonprofit was “unlawful” but the ruling was stayed by a federal appeals court panel a month later.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The USIP’s emergency motion comes days after Trump announced the Kennedy Center would be closing following a court ruling that blocked his name from being added to the building. Trump has threatened to tear down the center, and was seen on Wednesday viewing a large printout that appeared to say “Kennedy Center DEMOLISH.” The Kennedy Center, which USIP referred to in its motion, is seen as a bellwether for other institutions that Trump has sought to rebrand in his image.

“Notwithstanding the importance that the President and his supporters place on attaching his name to notable buildings,” the motion said, “Appellants will suffer no harm or prejudice whatsoever if they are precluded from carving the President’s name into the USIP building unless and until this litigation concludes in their favor.”

Congress

Republicans give Warsh room on interest rates

Published

7 hours ago

September 17, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Federal Reserve just made congressional Republicans’ lives even harder in the run-up to the November midterm elections. But they’re holding their fire on Fed Chair Kevin Warsh.

The Fed this week hiked interest rates for the first time since Warsh took over as the central bank’s leader. The central bank’s unanimous decision to increase borrowing costs threatens to worsen the growing problems Republicans face around voters’ views of the economy and the high cost of living.

But some GOP lawmakers indicated they were relieved to see Warsh’s willingness to buck President Donald Trump after he faced withering criticism during his confirmation process from Democrats, who said he would do the president’s bidding in the role.

“The Fed has to be independent. They showed that they were independent,” said Sen. Mike Rounds, a South Dakota Republican who is up for reelection. “That should give confidence to the markets.”

Republicans’ willingness to give Warsh room — despite its potential political downsides for them — highlights their deference to the new Fed chief.

“It’s not good,” said Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican who lost a primary earlier this year to a Trump-backed opponent. “But it’s a fact that they need to get inflation under control. But the timing is not optimal.”

The decision to hike rates comes amid an uneasy dynamic where the Fed is taking action to tamp down rising inflation while Trump wants to see the economy boosted by cheaper borrowing costs. Republican lawmakers, meanwhile, are caught between supporting Trump’s economic agenda and voicing confidence in Warsh’s ability to bring inflation under control.

Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.), a staunch supporter of the president who sits on the Senate Banking Committee, said that while she and Warsh “may have a different opinion on how we achieve a place where ultimately interest rates are low” and that she’d “love to see [lower rates],” she “trust[s] what [Warsh] is doing, and appreciate[s] the independence of the Fed.”

Warsh was tapped by Trump for the job in January with the hope that he would lower rates. However, since he was nominated, the U.S. entered into a conflict with Iran, high tariffs continued and gas prices soared, among other inflation and affordability concerns.

Trump-aligned lawmakers are cautioning against moving too aggressively to increase borrowing costs — but they are doing so gently.

Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) said in an interview that Warsh is “under a tremendous amount of pressure,” pointing to other Fed officials’ support for a hike.

“I understand the concerns about inflation, but I do think there’s a significant component of inflation that will be addressed as we address the situation in the Middle East,” Hagerty said.

Congress

Senate Democrats press Hegseth for Iran war price tag

Published

8 hours ago

September 17, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Forty-six members of the Senate Democratic caucus are demanding that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth provide a detailed accounting of the Iran war’s costs, arguing that the Pentagon has failed to explain how it has spent, and plans to spend, tens of billions of taxpayer dollars.

The letter, led by Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, was signed by every member of the Senate Democratic caucus except Sen. John Fetterman. Independent Sens. Bernie Sanders and Angus King, who caucus with Democrats, were also included.

The senators asked the Pentagon to provide a breakdown by Sept. 30 of all direct and indirect costs incurred to date in the conflict, as well as a breakdown of the administration’s $67 billion supplemental request. The senators also sought a detailed plan for how $34 billion of leftover funds allocated to the Pentagon in Republicans’ Big Beautiful Bill will be spent.

The letter also requests that the department specify which portions of the requested funds are intended to reimburse past expenses, and which are meant for future operations.

“Despite asking for tens of billions of additional taxpayer dollars, you have so far failed to provide basic information on how this money has and will be spent,” the senators wrote. “Congress must have access to this information to carry out our oversight responsibilities. It is the bare minimum that any American would expect in balancing their own household budget.”

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The demand comes as the war enters its seventh month with no agreement to end the conflict. On Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office said the conflict would reach about $2 billion to $3 billion a month, noting that the first five months cost the U.S. $38 billion — the most comprehensive look at the conflict ahead of the midterm elections.

Fetterman has repeatedly broken with his party over the conflict, supporting President Donald Trump’s decision to strike Iran in February and voting against a measure seeking to limit Trump’s war powers. His distance from Democrats was underscored last week when he made a surprise video appearance at Trump’s Republican midterm convention in Dallas.

Fetterman’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.