At the end of February, President Donald Trump chose to initiate a war against Iran. Now in its fourth week, the war has already claimed the lives of more than 1,000 Iranian civilians—including 200 children—and 13 U.S. service members. This reckless and immoral war, which has driven gasoline prices up roughly a third to an average of $3.98 in the United States, cost $11.3 billion in the first six days alone.
Though daily costs have declined as the United States has undertaken a slower tempo of operations and begun utilizing less expensive munitions than in the first days of the war, it still comes at a hefty price tag: Based on a combination of official cost tallies and estimates from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Iran war’s cost has likely surpassed $20 billion already and will likely surpass $25 billion by the end of this week. Reporting indicates that the White House is likely seeking supplemental appropriations that would provide more than $200 billion in additional funding—a request that cannot be justified on budgetary grounds.
While the cost of the war is funded through the Pentagon’s budget, and that money could not have been legally spent on domestic social programs, the spending nonetheless reflects a choice both Congress and the president made in allocating the county’s limited resources. This trade-off is particularly salient as Congress considers the president’s upcoming request. Before Congress chooses to provide $200 billion in new funding for the U.S. Department of Defense, it should seriously consider other ways that funding could be used, including improving people’s lives.
The Trump administration’s reported request for another $200 billion for the Iran war—less than a year after the president signed the largest cuts to the social safety net in U.S. history—is particularly jarring. The so-called Big Beautiful Bill is projected to leave 10 million more people without health insurance and take food assistance away from millions, including children, while simultaneously giving enormous tax cuts to the richest Americans. Taken as a whole, it constitutes the biggest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in a single law in U.S. history.
If Congress finds itself willing to deficit-finance $200 billion of new spending for a war with unclear aims and far greater risks than merits for U.S. national security, it should consider helping American families struggling to meet their basic needs.
To estimate the total cost of the Iran war at the time of publication, this analysis adopts the calculations from CSIS, which estimated the total cost at $16.5 billion by day 12. CSIS estimated an average cost of $601 million per day for days 7 through 12 of the war—which CAP derived from Figure 2 of their analysis. CAP’s analysis assumes the same average tempo of operations for days 13 through 24. Applying those estimates, the cost of the war would have exceeded $20 billion on March 17 and will reach $25 billion on March 26. In reality, the cost could be higher or lower, but in the absence of official information from the Trump administration, this is an acceptable proxy for the daily cost.
To estimate the cost of covering more Medicaid recipients, the author used projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on the federal cost of Medicaid this year. This analysis looks only at the federal share of the cost of Medicaid because it is focusing on choices the federal government makes; states would need to cover their share of the cost if more people were being enrolled in Medicaid as well. The average federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) in 2024 was 65 percent, so if the federal government were covering 100 percent of the cost—which is not how the program works—roughly 65 percent as many people could be covered.
To estimate the cost of covering more children under the National School Lunch Program, the author used data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture on the federal reimbursement rate of free lunches. The author assumed schools would receive the 9-cent additional performance-based reimbursement. The author also assumed there would be 180 school days in a year. To estimate the cost to cover all schoolchildren who currently don’t receive free meals, the author took the total number of K-12 schoolchildren and subtracted the number currently receiving free lunches. The author applied the cost per child derived above to the number of children who don’t receive free school lunches, making an adjustment for the small number of children who receive subsidized lunches.
To estimate the cost of covering more people under Section 8, the author used estimates of enrollment data for individuals from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, along with funding data, to calculate the average cost per individual. To estimate the cost to cover all people eligible for Section 8, the author took the Urban Institute’s estimate—based on scaling up housing choice vouchers—of what percentage increase in housing assistance is needed to cover those who are eligible for assistance but do not receive it. The author assumed this ratio still holds and applied it to the current funding for all of Section 8. This is an imperfect but acceptable rough proxy.
To estimate the cost of providing child care to children, the author used national estimates for the cost of child care in 2024 and then adjusted those costs for projected growth in the employment cost index from the CBO for 2024 through 2026 to adjust that estimate.
To estimate the cost of covering tuition at community college, the author used national estimates for the cost of tuition at community college in 2025 and then adjusted those costs for projected growth in the employment cost index from the CBO for 2025 through 2026 and 2025 through 2027 to adjust that estimate and cover two years for an associate degree.
For all programs, the author assumed the marginal cost of an additional person equals the average cost.