Skip to content
You can now search across every topic, entity and event.What's new
European Oil Markets
18MAY

$1.9bn a day, no bill to Congress

4 min read
17:30UTC

The Pentagon told senators behind closed doors that Operation Epic Fury burns $1.9 billion per day — a figure that excludes the missiles being fired and that no one has asked Congress to fund.

← Back to GL 134B out, Rotterdam dark, OPEC+ pendingJump to analysis ↓
EconomicDeveloping
Key takeaway

The US is fighting an unfunded war on existing accounts, consuming defence readiness that Congress has not authorised replacing.

Defence Department officials told the Senate Appropriations subcommittee in closed session on Tuesday that Operation Epic Fury's first six days cost an estimated $11.3 billion — approximately $1.9 billion per day. The figure, disclosed after the briefing by Senator Chris Coons, substantially exceeds the $3.7 billion that CSIS had independently estimated for the first 100 hours. Coons stated the true cost exceeds even the Pentagon's number: $11.3 billion excludes munitions replacement — the Tomahawk cruise missiles, JDAMs, and other precision-guided weapons expended in strikes across Iran, which carry per-unit costs of $1.5 million to $2.4 million.

At the disclosed daily rate, the war's 13-day running Total exceeds $24 billion — roughly equivalent to Iceland's annual GDP. Neither The White House nor the Pentagon has requested supplemental funding from Congress. The same Congress rejected the Massie-Khanna war powers resolution by seven votes, leaving no legislative mechanism in motion to either fund or constrain the campaign.

The cost disclosure arrived in a closed session — not a public hearing, not a White House budget request. Supplemental war funding historically requires congressional debate: the 2003 Iraq War's first supplemental was $78.5 billion, submitted weeks after the invasion began. The 2011 Libya intervention cost approximately $1.1 billion over seven months. Operation Epic Fury has spent more in two weeks than the US spent in the entire Libya campaign. Without a supplemental request, costs are being absorbed within existing defence budgets — meaning either other programmes are being deferred or the Pentagon intends to seek retroactive funding once the political dynamics of an active war make denial difficult.

The $1.9 billion per day does not account for economic costs outside the defence budget: the IEA's 400-million-barrel strategic reserve release, the impact on domestic fuel prices as WTI approaches $95, or downstream effects on allied economies. South Korea's KOSPI triggered circuit breakers twice in four sessions . European markets fell 2–3% in a single day . The fiscal cost to the US Treasury is one line in a broader ledger that no single institution is yet consolidating.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

When the US military fights a war, it pays through one of two routes. It can draw from existing defence budget accounts — money set aside for training, maintenance, and equipment. Or it can ask Congress for extra funds, called a supplemental appropriation, which requires a formal vote and public debate. The Trump administration has done neither of the latter. It is spending approximately $1.9 billion per day from existing accounts without requesting congressional approval or additional money. This matters for two reasons. First, Congress is being bypassed on the largest US military operation in over a decade — raising constitutional questions about executive war-making authority. Second, the military is consuming reserves it needs for readiness: training schedules, spare parts, and weapons stockpiles that take years to replace. The true cost is not just the dollars spent — it is the reduced military capacity that will persist long after this conflict ends.

Deep Analysis
Synthesis

The munitions consumption rate creates a cross-theatre readiness problem the $24 billion headline figure conceals. Every long-range precision weapon expended against Iran is unavailable for the Taiwan scenario that US Indo-Pacific strategy is built around. The fiscal cost is theoretically recoverable through future supplementals; readiness depletion on a two-to-five-year munitions replacement timeline is not. The real long-term cost of this operation will be measured in deterrence capacity, not dollars.

Root Causes

Requesting supplemental funding would trigger a mandatory War Powers Resolution debate and force a formal congressional authorisation vote. The administration avoided this by drawing on broad AUMF interpretations and existing appropriations authority. The seven-vote margin on the Massie-Khanna resolution demonstrated the political risk of forcing a formal vote. Fiscal avoidance and legal avoidance are a single strategic decision executed through the appropriations process.

What could happen next?
  • Meaning

    Congress has been effectively bypassed on the largest US military operation in over a decade, with no formal funding authorisation and no war powers vote.

    Immediate · Assessed
  • Risk

    O&M account depletion within the fiscal year may force an emergency supplemental request, triggering the congressional authorisation debate the administration sought to avoid.

    Short term · Suggested
  • Risk

    Precision munitions stockpile depletion reduces US deterrence capacity in the Indo-Pacific on a two-to-five-year replacement timeline, creating a window of reduced cross-theatre readiness.

    Medium term · Assessed
  • Precedent

    Funding a large-scale active war from existing appropriations without supplemental or formal authorisation establishes a template for bypassing congressional war finance oversight.

    Long term · Assessed
Sources:NBC News·The Hill·ABC News
Mentions:Senate Appropriations subcommittee →Iceland →Thomas Massie →GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator →White House →Libya →United States →H.Con.Res.38 →National Security Council (Iran) →Pentagon →Center for Strategic and International Studies →KOSPI →Iran →Operation Roaring Lion / Epic Fury →
First Reported In

Update #32 · UN condemns Iran 13-0; ceasefire blocked

NBC News· 12 Mar 2026
Read original →
Causes and effects
This Event
$1.9bn a day, no bill to Congress
The Pentagon's disclosed cost of $1.9 billion per day — which excludes munitions replacement — means the war has already cost more than the entire 2011 Libya intervention. At 13 days the running total exceeds $24 billion, with no supplemental funding request submitted and no legislative mechanism to constrain spending after Congress rejected the only war powers challenge by seven votes.
Led to
2,200 Marines pulled from Pacific
31st MEU redeployment adds to war costs already exceeding $24 billion (ID:968) with no supplemental funding requested
Occurred 13 Mar 2026
Read story →
Navy calls Hormuz an Iranian kill box
At $1.9 billion per day war cost, the conflict will have exceeded $30 billion by the time the 5,000-person force arrives around 27 March
Occurred 14 Mar 2026
Read story →
$16.5bn and 8,700 strikes in two weeks
Pentagon's initial $11.3B/6-day estimate updated by CSIS to $16.5B/12 days, tracking broadly consistent daily burn rate
Occurred 14 Mar 2026
Read story →
Different Perspectives
Indian refiners
Indian refiners
Indian refiners kept lifting discounted Urals as the India/Baltic price split widened past $9-10 a barrel, a gap that only grows as GL X1's Iranian wind-down cuts an alternative discounted grade off the market by 17 July. Cheaper Russian feedstock is being locked in while it lasts.
Chinese refiners
Chinese refiners
Chinese refiners gain leverage as the Urals-Brent discount widens, since Beijing's state buyers already source discounted Russian barrels near the fiscal floor unaffected by Western insurance costs. A wider discount, if it holds past 23 July, lets them lock in cheaper term contracts regardless of the cap's outcome.
US money managers (CFTC-tracked)
US money managers (CFTC-tracked)
Managed money trimmed WTI net length into the rally, positioning that reflects doubt the Hormuz premium survives without freight or war-risk confirmation. The Brent-WTI spread widening almost entirely on the Brent leg supports that scepticism about a broad-based repricing.
OPEC+ (Saudi-led subgroup)
OPEC+ (Saudi-led subgroup)
Saudi Arabia is defending market share through a fourth straight 188kbd August hike even as OPEC's own July MOMR cut 2026 demand growth for the fourth consecutive month. At a $108-111 fiscal breakeven, every added barrel costs Riyadh revenue it cannot recoup, so the hike reads as a positioning signal, not a demand bet.
Greek shipping registries
Greek shipping registries
Greece, backed by Cyprus and Malta, is pushing a three-month cap-freeze compromise against the Commission's freeze to January 2027 ahead of the 23 July vote. Athens' and Valletta's combined tanker registrations mean a shorter review gives their insurers more frequent chances to reprice risk on Russian cargoes.
Russia (Deputy PM Alexander Novak)
Russia (Deputy PM Alexander Novak)
Novak extended the diesel export restriction to producers on 8 July, the first producer-binding curb of the war, protecting the domestic pump price ahead of any refinery repair timeline. Urals still trades below Russia's $59 budget floor even as Brent gained, so the ban trades export revenue for fiscal stability at home.