Weighing Priorities: What U.S. Spending on the Iran War Could Fund Instead

The war in Iran has been a strategic failure. It has been successful only in raising costs on everything from groceries to gas; providing massive windfall profits to big corporations, including the oil and gas industry; and strengthening China’s global standing. The Trump administration has spent at least $37.5 billion—and potentially well over $100 billion—on the war but has failed to accomplish any of its stated objectives as the war approaches its six-month mark. The administration says it needs additional emergency war funding, and the House of Representatives recently voted on the first step in providing an additional $73 billion.

This is the same administration that has touted saving American taxpayers billions of dollars in “wasteful” spending by cutting “unnecessary” programs—such as those that reduce health insurance costs, fund education for children with disabilities, or maintain public drinking water infrastructure. Yet the cost of these programs and services amounts to only a fraction of what the administration has been willing to spend on a war that nobody asked for and that Congress never authorized.

$73 billion could accomplish a lot for the American people. It could provide full Medicaid coverage for 5 million more people, with $33 billion left over. And that remaining money could raise SNAP benefits and double fruit and vegetable benefits for half of infants born in the United States, with another $9.9 billon to spare. Then, that money could be used to double funding to reduce toxic chemical and pollution exposure for thousands of communities across the country, double funding for the National Park Service while also paying for emergency food and shelter assistance, with more than $2 billion still left over.

This is just one example of how taxpayer money could be used to actually benefit taxpayers. In the interactive above, the Center for American Progress has selected several programs that fall well below $73 billion and better align with the needs of the public.

The authors would like to thank Bill Rapp, Jiun Park, Fiona Fitzpatrick, Lucero Marquez, Trevor Higgins, Cathleen Kelly, Leo Banks, Margaret Cooney, Frances Colón, Emily Gee and Paige Shoemaker DeMio for their contributions to this interactive.