The Pentagon’s request for $88B in Iran war money is facing bipartisan pushback

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

Congress passed a nearly $88 billion package Wednesday afternoon after months of speculation over whether it would ever arrive, and how much it would cost. The current price tag is much lower than previous estimates, which predict the package could reach as high as $200 billion.

But after nearly four months and a tenuous peace deal, Democrats appear unwilling to support funding to replenish the arsenal, despite sweeteners that seem intended to attract their support.

CLOSED-DOOR REST IS A WINNING ANSWER TO TRUMP’S IRAN NEGOTIATIONS

“It seems designed to drive away the votes of the Democratic Alliance,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn.,. “It’s clear they’re not trying to pass this off.”

Those sweeteners, including $11 billion in aid to farmers and $1.4 billion to fight the Ebola outbreak in Africa, didn’t move Murphy, who charged that farm aid is mostly “war spending.”

The package is getting no love from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, DN.Y., who accused President Donald Trump of “asking taxpayers to clean up his mess.”

“After dragging America into a reckless war, he now wants Congress to give him tens of billions more to cover the damage — while families continue to pay higher prices,” Schumer told X. “We have to cut costs for the American people, not write another blank check for Trump.”

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

COST OF IRAN WAR TAG HITS $80B — MORE THAN CONGRESS TELLS

“It’s really true. I mean, including the things they discussed,” Hawley said. “FISA, they negotiated, which I didn’t like when they negotiated, but anyway, you know, they negotiated and said, ‘No,’ they negotiated all the appropriation bills and said, ‘No.’ I mean, so, you know, I’d be surprised if they were supportive.”

The bulk of the request is directed at the Pentagon and includes $67 billion for the Department of Defense, including $21 billion to replenish the stockpile of missiles depleted during the Iran attack, known as Operation Epic Fury, $17 billion for military operations, $2.4 billion and $5.1 billion for cyber security and independence.

Another $12 billion in Department of Defense funding will go to classified programs. The request also includes $2 billion for the Coast Guard and $800 million for the National Guard.

The administration also wants $672 million for the removal of Iran’s nuclear arsenal, inspection and verification efforts, and other counter-proliferation activities.

According to the proposal, the funding would support the removal of Iran’s nuclear material, including uranium hexafluoride (UF6), uranium in various forms and research reactor fuel, including highly enriched uranium.

The proposal would also fund potential US verification activities in Iran, subject to local access, support inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, strengthen efforts to detect nuclear weapons trafficking and expand the operations of the Nuclear Emergency Response Team throughout the Middle East.

The funding comes as US and Iranian negotiators work to translate a recent memorandum of understanding (MOU) into a more detailed agreement governing Iran’s nuclear program and stockpile of enriched uranium.

Although the memorandum established divestment as the least acceptable way to handle Iran’s enriched uranium, negotiators did not publicly say whether the material would ultimately remain in Iran, be transferred to another country or destroyed.

TRUMP DEMANDS $672M TO STOP IRANIAN NUKES AS NEGOTIATORS WORRY ABOUT URANIUM STOCKPILE

The price of ethanol-free gasoline is displayed on a gas pump at an Exxon gas station in Austin on May 5, 2026. The Trump administration will phase out the high ethanol E15 fuel in the US to stabilize demand this summer, expanding sales and benefiting corn farmers and biofuels producers. (Kaylee Greenlee/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

While Democrats shake their fists at the spending package, one provision included in the law could give Republicans heartburn.

Among the farm aid provisions is a goal to permanently extend the sale of fuel with a mixture of ethanol, a liquid biofuel made from corn, known as E15.

The E15 issue has shown unusual tension in the Senate Republican leadership, and some volatility in the Senate GOP based on the area.

“Promising the E15 mandate for a year is a check the president can’t pull,” a Republican source said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, RS.D., supports it, especially for the benefits it could give candidates for election or re-election in states where corn crops are king.

But his second-in-command, Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., vetoed the House E15 bill for the entire year when it passed last month and pointed out that allowing the mandate to blend the fuel would hurt small refiners and reverse Trump’s flagship renewable energy initiative, “a big, good bill.”

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

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS PROGRAM

“They make fuel prices more affordable,” he continued. “They strengthen our nation’s electricity security. The proposed new approvals for refineries will hurt them and the people they work for.”

Since the passage of the House bill, Thune said he has continued to have discussions to find a “way forward” on this matter.

“We are working with the community of stakeholders and our members on both sides to find out if that is something we can do and do,” said Thune.

Sen. Mike Rounds, RS.D., a representative of the system, disagreed and said that he considered it “motivational,” but acknowledged that there is a chance that it could be amended into a broader expansion plan.

“I mean it makes a better deal, and I don’t know why they would want to pull it out,” Rounds said.