By Watson Scott Swail, President/CEO & Senior Research Scholar, Educational Policy Institute

This afternoon, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine, will testify before the Senate Appropriations Committee to request an additional $87 billion to support the continuing conflict in Iraq and the Strait of Hormuz. To date, the war has cost $1.79 trillion. When long-term expenses such as medical care and interest on war-related debt are included, the total cost exceeds $3 trillion. That figure does not include the billions more that people around the world are paying through higher fuel prices. In the United States alone, extra fuel costs are estimated to have imposed a $40 billion unanticipated burden on Americans, or more than $300 per household.

The Senate may not want to approve the $87 billion request, but it may have little choice. And this will not be the final or even next-to-final request. The war is likely to continue, in some form, for many more months or years. The United States may also be expected to help fund the reconstruction of Iran at a cost of billions or even trillions of taxpayer dollars. No wonder the U.S. stands largely alone on this conflict: who would want to touch it?

Given these massive transfers of taxpayer dollars, it is worth asking: what else could the federal government fund with the same money? What is the opportunity cost of spending these funds on a war half a world away?

Recent federal spending figures provide rough benchmarks. Medicaid and CHIP spending was about $638 billion; SNAP about $98 billion; Pell Grants about $35 billion; transportation infrastructure about $96 billion; and federal education spending about $62 billion annually. Notably, the Trump Administration cut SNAP funding by $187 billion over the next decade through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law in July 2025. Medicaid and CHIP spending was cut by $1 trillion over the decade. Pell Grant funding increased under the bill, but by only $10 billion—a seemingly infinitesimal amount compared with today’s war budget request.

Put another way, $87 billion is roughly equivalent to:

Alternative use	Approximate comparison
SNAP food assistance	Nearly a full year of SNAP benefits at recent spending levels.
Pell Grants	More than two years of Pell Grant funding.
Federal K–12 education spending	More than one year of federal elementary and secondary education spending.
Transportation infrastructure	Almost a full year of federal transportation spending.
Child-care assistance	More than four years of recent federal child-care assistance spending.
Housing assistance	Well over two years of recent federal housing-assistance spending.

The $1.79 trillion in current Iran War costs estimated by the Kennedy School at Harvard University is about 20 times larger than today’s $87 billion request. It is also larger than the annual budgets of almost all domestic federal functions except Social Security, Medicare, and defense. To put $1.79 trillion in perspective, consider the following opportunity-cost comparisons:

Program/category	Recent annual spending	What $1.79 trillion could fund
SNAP and nutrition assistance	~$98 billion/year	About 18 years.
Pell Grants	~$35 billion/year	About 51 years.
Federal transportation spending	~$96 billion/year	About 19 years.
Housing assistance	~$50 billion/year	About 36 years.
Child-care assistance	~$20 billion/year	About 90 years.
Federal education spending	~$62 billion/year	About 29 years.
Medicaid and CHIP	~$638 billion/year	Nearly 2.8 years.

The broader budget comparisons are just as striking:

• The $1.79 trillion cost exceeds a full year of Social Security spending, which was about $1.5 trillion in the referenced budget year.
• It is about twice annual Medicare spending, which was about $874 billion.
• It is nearly three years of annual Medicaid and CHIP spending.
• It exceeds the combined annual spending on many domestic priorities, including education, transportation, housing assistance, child-care assistance, and nutrition assistance.

Many taxpayers, economists, and policy analysts are rightly concerned by this contrast. The Administration could not justify maintaining funding for social services and other programs later cut by the One Big Beautiful Bill. Yet finding appropriations for an unjust, uncalled-for, and unnecessary war appears to be treated as entirely appropriate.

The midterm election is scheduled for November 3, 2026. Vote wisely.

SOURCES:

Costs of War Project, Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University: https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/

USA Facts, “This chart tells you everything you want to know about government spending”: https://usafacts.org/articles/this-chart-tells-you-everything-you-want-to-know-about-government-spending/

The New York Times, live coverage, July 21, 2026: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/07/21/us/trump-news

Harvard Kennedy School, “Explainer: Understanding the SNAP Program and What Cuts”: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policy-topics/social-policy/explainer-understanding-snap-program-and-what-cuts

Harvard Kennedy School, “The True Cost of the Iraq War: $3 Trillion and Beyond”: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/true-cost-iraq-war-3-trillion-and-beyond

Citizens Bank, “Will the Pell Grant Change as a Result of the OBBBA?”: https://www.citizensbank.com/student/articles/will-the-pell-grant-change-as-a-result-of-the-obbba.aspx

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “SNAP Tracker: People Are Losing Food Assistance as the Republican Megabill”: https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/snap-tracker-people-are-losing-food-assistance-as-the-republican-megabill

* * * *