# INVESTIGATION: Trump Bills Congress $87.6 Billion to Pay for His War Against Iran

> On June 25, 2026, the White House transmitted to the American Congress a supplemental funding request of $87.6 billion. The letter was signed by Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget. The primary destination of this sum: covering the costs of the war against Iran, launched by Trump in February 2026 without prior congressional authorization, alongside I

- Author: Maxime Marquette
- Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co)
- Section: Investigation
- Published: 2026-06-29
- Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/enquete-trump-reclame-87-6-milliards-au-congres-pour-payer-sa-guerre-contre-l-ir

## Introduction: The War's Invoice Lands on Congress's Desk

### A number that makes your head spin

On **June 25, 2026**, the White House transmitted to the American **Congress** a supplemental funding request of **$87.6 billion**. The letter was signed by Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and **Budget**. The primary destination of this sum: covering the costs of the **war against Iran**, launched by **Trump** in **February 2026** without prior congressional authorization, alongside Israel.

Of that total, **$67.1 billion** is directly tied to the **Iranian conflict**. The rest breaks down into **$21 billion for the defense industry and munitions**, **$1.4 billion against the Ebola epidemic in the Congo**, and **$11.1 billion for American farmers**. A **war budget** dressed up as a governance budget — classic.

### The war without a mandate, the bill without consensus

This is not a procedural detail: **Trump** launched a large-scale military operation against a sovereign state **without asking Congress for authorization**. And now he is asking that same **Congress** to pay for it retroactively. A self-respecting democracy should shudder at this. But here, it has almost become the norm.

**Democrats** have already signaled their opposition. A **senior Democratic leader** warned that his party would not fund an unpopular **conflict** that **elected officials never authorized**. The polls validate his position: a recent **Reuters/Ipsos** survey reveals that only **a quarter of Americans** believe the United States came out stronger from this conflict.

*There is something deeply troubling in this equation: Trump declares a war, Congress discovers the bill after the fact, and the public shrugs. This is not governance — it is budgetary cavalry dressed up as patriotism.*

## The Breakdown of the Request: Who Pays for What

### $67.1 billion for Iran: the most expensive war of the decade

The Iranian portion of the request, **$67.1 billion**, is massive. It covers direct military operations, maintenance of deployed equipment, replenishment of depleted **munitions** stocks, and support for forward operating bases in the region. This figure surpasses the annual **defense** budgets of most **NATO** nations.

For context, total **military aid to Ukraine since 2022** from the United States amounts to roughly **$60 billion** over three years. In just a few months of **war** against **Iran**, **Washington** has already exceeded that amount. **Trump**'s geopolitical priorities are clear, even if their **strategic** coherence remains to be demonstrated.

### $21 billion for the defense industry

The **$21 billion** earmarked for the **defense industrial base** and **munitions** signals that American stocks have been **significantly drawn down**. The **war** against **Iran** consumed **missiles**, **drones**, and equipment at a pace that supply chains had not anticipated.

This is precisely what some **NATO** experts had feared since 2022: an America stretched thin across multiple fronts simultaneously, whose **industrial** capacity to replenish its stocks is **structurally constrained**. European allies are watching this budget request with well-founded anxiety.

*When America empties its munitions warehouses in a war its own allies did not approve, who actually pays the bill? The answer is the collective security of the entire West.*

## The $350 Billion Arsenal of Freedom: Trump's Third Major Initiative

### Recon 3.0: Trumpian budgetary overreach

Simultaneous with this $87.6 billion emergency request, **Trump** is pushing a **third budget reconciliation package** — dubbed "Recon 3.0" — that would add **$350 billion** to **defense**, bringing the total military **budget** to **$1.5 trillion**. Trump himself called it a "generational investment," larger than even Reagan's buildup.

A military budget of **$1.5 trillion** would be unprecedented in American history. To put it in perspective: it would exceed the **combined GDP of Australia and the Netherlands**. An unapologetic imperial ambition, in the direct lineage of an "Arsenal of Freedom" that **Trump** intends to cement as the legacy of his second term.

### Recon 1 and 2 already signed, Recon 3 stalled

The **first reconciliation package** funded forced immigration enforcement. The **second — the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act"** — allocated **$70 billion** to immigration law enforcement for the duration of the term. **Trump** signed it just before calling for a third round.

But **Recon 3.0** is running into **unexpected resistance** within the Republican camp itself. Senator John Kennedy declared: **"It's a very, very long shot that something passes before the midterms**." Susan Collins, chair of the Senate **Appropriations** Committee, was more blunt: **"Reconciliation is not the best approach."** Even McConnell cooled expectations at a tense hearing.

*Trump's own camp is pumping the brakes. When Republicans refuse to fund their president's military project, it signals that even on the right, excess has a limit. Or at least an electoral calendar.*

## Congress Confronting the Unauthorized War

### Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, rendered meaningless

The **American Constitution** is explicit: it is **Congress** that declares war. **Trump** circumvented this foundational provision by invoking his powers as commander in chief — a familiar configuration since the **Korean War**. But in 2026, with **billions at stake** and a hostile public, the argument is beginning to crumble.

Lawmakers from both parties have revived the debate over the **War Powers Resolution Act of 1973**, which theoretically requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops, and to obtain authorization within 60 days. Trump, like his predecessors, has ignored this constraint. But at some point, he will need Congress to authorize a line of credit.

### Democrats refuse to pay

The Democratic response to the **$87.6 billion** request was immediate and unambiguous: **absolutely not going to retroactively fund a war Congress never authorized**. This principled refusal is not merely symbolic — it creates a real legislative blockage in an already maximally polarized Congress.

The funding request arrives in a context of **general paralysis** on Capitol Hill. Trump linked his housing bill — adopted by bipartisan majorities — to the advancement of a voter verification bill, thereby blocking the entire legislative calendar. Foreign policy becomes a hostage of domestic politics, as often happens in moments of institutional strain.

*Democrats are right on the merits: you cannot launch a war without a mandate and then present the bill after the fact. But their opposition, as constitutionally legitimate as it is, leaves the American military apparatus in a funding uncertainty that bodes ill for regional stability.*

## The Unpopularity of the War: The Inconvenient Numbers

### A quarter of Americans satisfied, three quarters doubtful

The **Reuters/Ipsos** poll published at the end of June 2026 is unambiguous: **only 25% of Americans** believe the United States came out of the Iranian conflict stronger. This is a harsh popular verdict on a war presented as a strategic victory by the Trump administration.

This figure stands in stark contrast with the **official White House narrative**, which speaks of a successful operation, the elimination of Iranian nuclear capabilities, and regional stabilization. But Americans do not see the concrete benefits — they see an **$87.6 billion** bill, deployed soldiers, and a Middle East that remains unstable.

### The political cost of an unpopular war

The **November 2026 midterm elections** are approaching. In this context, every vote to fund the Iranian war is a political risk that moderate Republicans are not prepared to take. Demographic data and district-level polls show that **independent voters**, crucial in swing districts, are not convinced by the bellicose narrative.

This electoral reality partly explains why Republican senators like Kennedy, Collins, and McConnell are pumping the brakes on Recon 3.0. The war against Iran may not have the political momentum **Trump** had hoped for. And without political momentum, even the **$87.6 billion** risks getting stuck in parliamentary limbo.

*The war may have been won militarily — we don't really know yet — but it is clearly being lost politically. And in a democracy, it is often this second battle that determines history.*

## The Context: The Most Ambitious Defense Budget in History

### $1.5 trillion: reality or electoral fantasy?

To understand the **$87.6 billion** request, it must be placed in the context of Trump's total ambition: a **Pentagon budget of $1.5 trillion**, the largest in American history. Senate and House appropriators have advanced legislation to authorize **$1.15 trillion** through the regular process. The remaining **$350 billion** is what Trump wants to pass through reconciliation.

In this context, the **$87.6 billion** emergency request takes on its full meaning: it is not an exception, it is the logic of a presidency that views military power as the cornerstone of its foreign policy. **Peace through strength** — the Reaganite doctrine resurrected but scaled to a level even Reagan would not have dared.

### The Iranian budgetary precedent and its global consequences

What is happening with the Iranian war has direct repercussions on **America's capacity to support Ukraine**. When munitions stocks are depleted by a Middle East operation, they are no longer available for European defense. When Congress is paralyzed by an **$87.6 billion Iran request**, military aid requests for Kyiv take a back seat.

**NATO** allies are watching this development with anxiety. Europe, which has massively increased its own defense spending since 2022, realizes that **dependence on the American umbrella** is structurally fragile. What the Iranian budget reveals is the limits of centralizing Western security around Washington.

*Every billion swallowed by the Iranian war is a billion not available to contain Russia in Europe. Trump may have dealt with Iran, but he has simultaneously weakened NATO's eastern flank. This strategic tradeoff deserves a serious audit that no one in Washington seems in any hurry to conduct.*

## The International Reaction: Silent Allies, Attentive Adversaries

### Europe treading carefully

European capitals commented on the **$87.6 billion** request with calculated diplomatic discretion. In private, several EU and NATO officials have expressed concern about **American strategic overstretch**. How can Washington simultaneously maintain its commitments in Europe, the Pacific, and the Middle East?

The honest answer is that it cannot — not without considerable costs, not only financial but also in terms of **geopolitical focus**. Iran is consuming political attention and legislative capital that Ukraine could have used. Europeans know this. They maintain public silence and accelerate their own rearmament.

### China, Iran, and Russia: a careful reading

In Beijing, Moscow, and Tehran, the **$87.6 billion** request is read differently: as proof that the United States is stretching dangerously across multiple fronts. **China** is observing American congressional paralysis with obvious strategic interest. An America divided over its military priorities is an America less able to respond to an action in the South China Sea or over Taiwan.

**Russia**, for its part, draws a similar conclusion for the Ukrainian front. If Washington is absorbed by the Iranian bill, weapons deliveries to Ukraine could slow. This is not a certainty, but it is a probability that Moscow integrates into its operational calculations. The West's enemies are patient and read budgets.

*The West's adversaries don't defeat us with superior armies. They defeat us by waiting for our own institutions to paralyze themselves. The $87.6 billion request is in the process of becoming exactly that kind of involuntary gift to our enemies.*

## The Implications for Ukraine: The Great Concern

### Aid to Ukraine in the shadow of Iran

Since Russia's invasion in 2022, the United States has provided Ukraine with tens of billions of dollars in military and economic aid. But this aid has always been politically contested, and the 2026 Iranian conflict creates a **new budget pressure** threatening to reduce the margins available.

Congress, paralyzed by the **$87.6 billion** Iran request, has less legislative bandwidth for Ukraine. Republicans who already opposed Ukrainian aid now have an additional argument: America cannot fund everything. This is economically false — the United States has the means — but it is politically effective in a Congress with a fragile majority.

### Zelensky between Trump and Congress

**Volodymyr Zelensky** navigates these troubled waters with the mastery of a man accustomed to existential crises. At the **G7 in Évian** in June 2026, he showed Trump photos of the destruction of the **Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra** to remind him that Russia's war against Ukraine is not a frozen conflict but an ongoing crime.

This image diplomacy — showing the ruins, naming the dead — is the only weapon Zelensky has against the American temptation to focus on Iran. Ukraine must remain visible in Washington's field of view. It must stay present in a world where crises compete for headlines and budgets.

*Zelensky understands something that too many leaders ignore: in American politics, what is not visible does not exist. So he shows the photos. He names the sites. He forces Ukraine's presence into the field of vision of an administration distracted by Iran. It is exhausting, but it is necessary.*

## The Mechanics of War Financing in the United States

### Supplementals, reconciliation, continuing resolutions: three pathways

The **$87.6 billion** request is a **supplemental funding request** — an off-budget mechanism used for unplanned expenditures. It is the fastest route, but requires the agreement of both chambers and risks being blocked by Democrats.

In parallel, **budget reconciliation** — used for Trump's three "Recon" packages — allows certain expenditures to be passed with a simple 51-vote Senate majority, bypassing the filibuster. But its use is constrained by strict rules (notably the Byrd Rule), and foreign policy expenditures are difficult to package as budget reconciliation in the technical sense.

### The political calendar: the midterm wall

With **midterm elections in November 2026**, the legislative calendar is under extreme pressure. Every week counts, every vote leaves a trace in the political record that opponents will use on the campaign trail. Funding an unpopular war in a Congress with a fragile majority is a political gamble that many representatives refuse to take.

Senator Kennedy summed up the mood: **"That's the political reality."** This **pragmatic clarity** from within the Republican camp shows that even Trump's supporters are calculating their own electoral survival. The war against Iran may be **Trump's war**, but the bill belongs to everyone.

*The problem with wars not authorized by Congress is that sooner or later you still have to present the bill. And it is always that moment that reveals whether the war had genuine support — or only conditional tolerance.*

## Toward a Constitutional Crisis?

### The precedent and its dangers

If Trump obtains his **$87.6 billion** without a genuine debate on the war's authorization, it would set a **dangerous constitutional precedent**. It would mean that a president can now launch a war, commit the United States to a major Middle Eastern conflict, and then present the bill as a routine administrative expense.

This drift of **war powers** toward the executive is not new — it has accelerated since Vietnam — but it reaches a new stage under Trump. The **$87.6 billion** Iran request is not merely a budgetary question: it is a question of who, in American democracy, has the right to decide that a nation goes to war.

### Constitutionalist voices are rising

**Constitutional lawyers** from both political camps have begun documenting what they call a **gradual usurpation of the war power**. Legal challenges are being considered, even though American courts have historically been reluctant to rule on questions of **executive power** in **national security** matters.

The gravest constitutional crisis may not come from a spectacular act, but from a silent accumulation of precedents. The **$87.6 billion Iran request** could well be one of those pivotal moments that historians will cite twenty years hence as the point of no return.

*I am not a constitutional lawyer. But I know that when institutions stop resisting the encroachments of executive power, it is not the constitution that dies — it is democratic practice. And that death is always silent.*

## Rebuilding Iran: A Third Trillion?

### After the war, the contract

In the shadow of the **$87.6 billion** request, another Trumpian ambition is emerging: funding the **reconstruction of Iran** after the strikes. Trump has publicly mentioned a package of **$300 billion** to rebuild Iranian infrastructure destroyed in the conflict, as part of a normalization agreement negotiated via a **memorandum of understanding (MOU)**.

This pharaonic reconstruction project — reminiscent of the Marshall Plan but in a Trumpian commercial logic — is even more politically uncertain than the **$87.6 billion** war cost. Funding the reconstruction of a country you just bombed, with American taxpayer money, in a Congress already resistant — this is a nearly impossible political equation.

### The ambiguity of the Iranian MOU

The **memorandum of understanding** signed between the United States and Iran remains vague in its public details. What we know: it provides for a form of conditional normalization, guarantees on the Iranian nuclear program, and American participation in reconstruction. What we don't know: the verification mechanisms, exit conditions, and duration of the American commitment.

In this context of opacity, the **$87.6 billion** request to Congress appears as the first reality check: if even this sum cannot pass, the **$300 billion** reconstruction ambition will remain a presidential dream on a briefing sheet.

*Rebuilding what you just destroyed with public money from a nation that didn't vote for this war: that is a proposition asking Americans to trust blindly in one man's judgment. History has examples of where that leads.*

## NATO Allies: Recalibrating Without Washington

### Europe draws its own lessons

The **$87.6 billion Iran request** coincides with an unprecedented acceleration of **European rearmament**. Germany, France, Poland, the Baltic states — all are massively investing in their own defense industries, conscious that American protection has both a price and limits.

The **35th meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group at Ramstein**, held in Brussels in June 2026, illustrates this trend: more than **$1.7 billion in aid to Ukraine** announced without direct American participation. The **United Kingdom**, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands are leading. Washington watches, absorbed in its own **budgetary debates**.

### European strategic resilience as a response

What the Trump administration does not seem to grasp is that every time it leaves a strategic void in Europe, it pushes the European Union to fill that void with its own resources. In the short term, a more militarily autonomous Europe is not in American interest — it generates intra-NATO friction — but it is **inevitable and perhaps even healthy** in the long term.

The **$87.6 billion** Iran request is thus also an accelerant of European strategic autonomy. Trump wanted Europeans to spend more on their defense. He is getting what he asked for — just not quite in the way he imagined.

*A Europe that rearms is not a Europe abandoning America. It is a Europe learning, slowly and painfully, that you cannot indefinitely outsource your own survival. It is a late lesson — but at least it is being learned.*

## The Confidence Vote: What Happens If Congress Says No?

### A rejection without precedent since Vietnam

If Congress were to reject the **$87.6 billion** requested by the Trump administration, it would represent a **historic political setback** comparable to Congress's refusal to fund certain covert operations during the Vietnam War or the controversies around the Iraq War. This full scenario is unlikely, but a partial version — reduced or conditional funding — is entirely conceivable.

In that case, the administration would need to draw on **existing reserve funds**, reallocate ongoing budgets, or seek **alternative funding sources**. This kind of budgetary contortion feeds **institutional distrust** and creates precedents that weaken governance structures.

### The signal sent to America's enemies

A Congress that refuses to fund the president's war — or that does so reluctantly and partially — sends a **signal of institutional weakness** to China, Russia, North Korea, and terrorist networks. These actors constantly evaluate the cohesion of American democracy as a variable in their strategic calculations.

This is not a reason to sign a blank check for Trump. It is a reason to recognize that internal American debates have immediate geopolitical consequences. **Paralysis on Capitol Hill** is read as strategic weakness by the West's adversaries. And they are right to see it as an opportunity.

*I am not saying Congress must capitulate to Trump's demands. I am saying that a democracy that paralyzes itself over its own strategic decisions offers a spectacle that pleases its enemies far more than it deters them. A path must be found — debate, conditions, oversight — that is neither capitulation nor deadlock.*

## Complementary Analysis: Dimensions and Perspectives

### Structural factors often overlooked

Analysis of this situation would benefit from integrating the structural dimensions operating in the background of immediate events. **Long-term dynamics** — economic, demographic, technological — shape the context in which political and military decisions are made. Ignoring these dimensions means analyzing the surface without understanding what lies beneath.

These structural factors are not theoretical abstractions — they translate into very concrete constraints for decision-makers. **Defense industrial capacity**, munitions stocks, the availability of skilled human resources, the state of public finances: these are the material realities that determine what options are actually available, independent of stated intentions.

### What the broader geopolitical context reveals

This situation is part of a geopolitical context broader than the Ukraine war alone. The competition between great powers — between **the West on one side**, and Russia, China, Iran, and their allies on the other — fundamentally structures the dynamics observed. Understanding this backdrop is essential to evaluating the real stakes at play.

Decisions that appear tactical on the surface are often strategic in depth. **What is happening today** in Western capitals, on Ukrainian battlefields, and in negotiating rooms concerns not only Ukraine — it concerns the global security architecture that will emerge from this period of turbulence.

*Analyzing these complementary dimensions, I am struck by the density of overlapping stakes. This war is not a local crisis — it is a stress test for the liberal world order. The result of this test will determine the rules of the geopolitical game for decades to come. This is not a metaphor. It is the reality that today's leaders carry on their shoulders.*

*In conclusion, one conviction stands firm: the stakes described here go beyond the news cycle. They engage our conception of what the West wants to be in the world — and our willingness to defend that conception with the necessary means, not merely with good intentions.*

## Conclusion: $87.6 Billion as a Mirror of an America Under Tension

### A bill that reveals more than it conceals

The **$87.6 billion** request to Congress to fund the war against Iran is far more than a line in a ledger. It is a revelation of an America torn between its imperial ambitions, its constitutional constraints, its electoral calendars, and its commitments to its allies. It is a portrait of a superpower that has not yet decided what it wants to be in this new century.

Trump launched a war without a mandate, presented the bill after the fact, and is now asking for **$350 billion more** for an "Arsenal of Freedom." His own Republican allies are pumping the brakes. The public is skeptical. And in the meantime, in Kyiv, they are waiting for munitions deliveries with an impatience that is anything but abstract.

### The West confronting its own contradictions

The West — with America at its head — is the center of the democratic world. But being that center requires a strategic coherence that democracies sometimes struggle to maintain in the face of electoral pressures and multiple crises. The **war against Iran**, the **$1.5 trillion defense budget**, support for Ukraine, competition with China: all these lines of tension converge on this single figure of **$87.6 billion** — a bill that America will have to pay, one way or another.

**By Maxime Marquette, columnist**

## Columnist's transparency note

### Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

### Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here.

**Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

**Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**.

### Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.

## Sources

### Primary sources

- [The Guardian — Trump administration's $87.6 billion request to Congress for Iran war — June 25, 2026](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2026/jun/25/trump-housing-bill-senate-regulations-supreme-court-latest-news-updates)

- [Fox News Digital — Trump's push for $350 billion 'Arsenal of Freedom' hits GOP skepticism — June 11, 2026](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-push-350-billion-arsenal-freedom-hits-gop-skepticism)

- [ASA Online — Reconciliation 2.0 enacted: Trump signs second party-line spending package — June 17, 2026](https://www.asaonline.com/2026/06/17/reconciliation-2-0-enacted-president-trump-signs-second-party-line-spending-package-signals-push-for-additional-defense-funding/)

### Secondary sources

- [Washington Times — Trump's push for third filibuster-proof bill runs into Senate skepticism — June 12, 2026](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/jun/12/push-trump-johnson-third-filibuster-proof-bill-runs-senate-skepticism/)

- [Kyiv Independent — UK to send Ukraine 150,000 drones, air defense systems — June 18, 2026](https://kyivindependent.com/uk-to-send-ukraine-150-000-drones-air-defense-systems-in-1-billion-package-funded-by-proceeds-from-immobilized-russian-assets/)

- [UNN — At Ramstein, over $1.7 billion in aid to Ukraine announced — June 18-19, 2026](https://unn.ua/en/news/at-ramstein-over-dollar17-billion-in-aid-to-ukraine-for-air-defense-and-ammunition-was-announced-ministry-of-defense)

---

Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/enquete-trump-reclame-87-6-milliards-au-congres-pour-payer-sa-guerre-contre-l-ir