Trump’s $88B Iran war bill collides with Senate opposition

The Pentagon’s massive funding request to pay some of the costs of the Iran war is going to be a hard sell for Senate Democrats, and a key issue buried deep in the multibillion-dollar request could divide Republicans. 

Congress received the nearly $88 billion package Wednesday afternoon after months of speculation about whether it would ever come, and exactly how much it would cost. The current price tag is drastically lower than earlier estimates, which project the package could reach as high as $200 billion. 

But after roughly four months and a tenuous peace deal in place, Democrats appear unwilling to support the funding that would replenish munitions, despite sweeteners that appear geared toward attracting their support. 

CLOSED-DOOR OUTBURST TURNS INTO VICTORY FOR TRUMP’S IRAN NEGOTIATIONS

“It seems designed to repel Democratic votes,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said. “They’re clearly not trying to pass this.”

Those sweeteners, which include $11 billion in aid for farmers and $1.4 billion to fight the Ebola outbreak in Africa, didn’t sway Murphy, who charged that the farm assistance in particular was a “war cost.” 

The package isn’t getting any love from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., either, who accused President Donald Trump of “asking taxpayers to clean up his messes.” 

“After dragging America into a reckless war, he now wants Congress to hand him tens of billions more to paper over the damage — while families are still paying higher prices,” Schumer said on X. “We should be lowering costs for the American people, not writing another blank check for Trump.”

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

IRAN WAR’S PRICE TAG HITS $80B — MORE THAN DOUBLE WHAT CONGRESS WAS TOLD

“It’s literally true. I mean, including stuff that they negotiated,” Hawley said. “FISA, they negotiated, which I didn’t like when they negotiated, but still, you know, they negotiated and said, ‘No,’ they negotiated all the appropriations bills then said, ‘No.’
I mean, so, you know, I’d be shocked if they did support it.”

The bulk of the request is geared toward the Pentagon and includes $67 billion for the War Department, including $21 billion to replenish missile stockpiles depleted during the Iran offensive, known as Operation Epic Fury, $17 billion for military operations, $2.4 billion for drones and $5.1 billion for cybersecurity and autonomy.

Another $12 billion of the War Department funding would go toward classified programs. The request also includes $2 billion for the Coast Guard and $800 million for the National Guard.

The administration is also seeking $672 million for the removal of Iranian nuclear materials, inspections and verification efforts, and other counterproliferation activities.

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

The proposal would also fund potential U.S. verification activities in Iran, subject to site access, support inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, strengthen nuclear-smuggling detection efforts and expand Nuclear Emergency Support Team operations across the Middle East.

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

While the memorandum established downblending as the minimum acceptable method for handling Iran’s enriched uranium, negotiators have not publicly disclosed whether the material would ultimately remain in Iran, be transferred to another country or be destroyed.

TRUMP SEEKS $672M TO STOP IRANIAN NUKES AS NEGOTIATORS WEIGH FATE OF URANIUM STOCKPILE

While Democrats shake their fists at the supplemental spending package, one provision tucked into the legislation could also give Republicans heartburn. 

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

The E15 issue showed a rare rift in Senate Republican leadership, one that ripples through the Senate GOP based on geography and differing state economies than on a personal leve. 

“Promising a year-round E15 mandate is a check the president can’t cash,” a Republican source said. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., backs it, particularly for the benefits it could give candidates running for election or re-election in states where corn crops are king. 

But his second-in-command, Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., bucked the House’s year-round E15 bill when it passed last month and has argued that allowing a mandate on the fuel blend would hurt small refiners and undo strides for energy production made in Trump’s flagship legislation, the “big, beautiful bill.”

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

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“They make gasoline prices more affordable,” he continued. “They strengthen our nation’s energy security. Proposed new mandates on small refineries would harm them and the people who work for them.”

Since the House bill passed, Thune said he has continued to have conversations to find a “path forward” on the issue. 

“We’re working with the stakeholder community and our members on both sides to figure out if that’s something we can execute on and get done,” Thune said.

Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., a proponent of the provision, argued that he viewed it as an “incentive,” but acknowledged there was a chance it could be amended out of the broader supplemental package. 

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