The Trump administration has requested $200 billion in supplemental funding for war against Iran that Congress has neither authorized nor meaningfully debated. Yet Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is indicating that the amount could increase. At a time when lawmakers insist there are insufficient resources for basic needs, even a fraction of this request reveals a starkly different set of priorities.
Roughly 5.5% of that $200 billion could fund universal meals to all U.S. public school students for the year. The whole package could feed millions of children for decades. As Sen. Adam Schiff (CA) has pointed out, “A hospital costs about $100 million… If we’re spending a billion a day in Iran, we’re effectively dropping 10 hospitals a day on Iran.”
Some members of Congress have already made their positions on funding clear. Rep. Lauren Boebert (CO-4) has stated she plans to oppose the supplemental, while Sen. Chris Murphy (CT) has rejected the idea that funding this war equates to supporting the troops, urging, “If you support the troops, you should be voting against this war so that we can get our troops out of harm’s way.”
If Congress wants to end this unauthorized and immoral war of choice, save lives, restore the economy, protect the Constitution, and pave the way for diplomacy, it must act decisively.
Beyond the cost, Congress must confront a fundamental question: legality. Increasing funding is an investment in an unconstitutional war that most Americans oppose. Before taking another step toward escalation, Congress should weigh three key considerations:
1. Implicit War Authorization
Under Article I of the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. With neither a congressional authorization nor a self-defense justification, this war does not have a legal foundation.
However, members of Congress should understand that voting to fund this war risks functioning as de facto authorization. Previous U.S. administrations and courts have interpreted appropriations for wars as evidence of congressional consent, even when individual members of Congress publicly expressed opposition. If lawmakers believe this war is unauthorized or unwise, they cannot assume that rhetorical opposition will outweigh a vote to fund it.
2. Effective Precedents
Congress has the tools to stop unauthorized wars and has used them in the past. When President Richard Nixon expanded the Vietnam War into Cambodia for example, Congress responded by passing the War Powers Act of 1973 and cut off funding for combat operations in Southeast Asia soon after.
These actions demonstrated that Congress can assert its constitutional war authority by exercising its power of the purse. Congress has these same tools today. It has both the authority and responsibility to act again now.
3. Complicity in Crimes
Congress also has another important and direct mechanism to prevent further escalation and avoid complicity in violations of U.S. and international law: restricting weapons transfers. Through Joint Resolutions of Disapproval, lawmakers can block specific arms sales that risk fueling an even broader conflict.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT) has several such resolutions to block specific weapons sales to Israel that are tied to escalating violence and evidence of war crimes. Israel’s actions using U.S. weapons have at times contradicted the U.S. president’s messaging, such as this attack on Iran’s energy infrastructure after a pause of attacks was promised. In light of this, Congress can additionally use the decisive de-escalatory tool of blocking weapons and security assistance.
If Congress wants to end this unauthorized and immoral war of choice, save lives, restore the economy, protect the Constitution, and pave the way for diplomacy, it must act decisively. That means rejecting any measure that funds this war, restoring its authority over war powers and blocking the arms sales to Israel that risk widening this already devastating conflict.
