31JUL

$19bn war bill Congress will not fund

4 min read

09:33UTC

At $900 million per day, three weeks of Operation Epic Fury have cost an estimated $19 billion — and the Pentagon's $200 billion supplemental request faces opposition from both parties with no constitutional off-ramp in sight.

← Back to Insurers shut Bab el-Mandeb to Saudi hulls Jump to analysis ↓

EconomicAssessed

Key takeaway

Operation Epic Fury's $900 million daily expenditure rate may be the highest in US military history.

At the burn rate the Center for Strategic and International Studies calculated — $900 million per day — three weeks of Operation EPIC FURY have cost the United States an estimated $19 billion ¹. The Pentagon has responded with a $200 billion supplemental funding request, with no timeline for the war's conclusion and no stated conditions for its end . Defence Secretary Hegseth said the figure "could move" ². Fortune calculated $200 billion funds approximately 140 more days at the current tempo.

The spending request has fractured the political Coalition that launched the war. Senator Lisa Murkowski will not vote without a White House strategy outline. Representative Lauren Boebert declared herself "a no on any war supplemental." CNN reported Republican leaders "do not believe they have the votes" within their own caucus . Representative Rosa DeLauro, ranking Democrat on House Appropriations, called the figure "outrageous." The opposition is bipartisan in a way the constitutional question was not — six Democratic senators forced a War Powers Resolution vote on 18 March, which Senate Republicans blocked , but on the money, members of both parties are refusing.

Congress has declined to authorise the war under the War Powers Act and is now declining to fund it. The White House has not exercised any of the off-ramp options that NBC News reported military officials include in daily briefings . Without new appropriations, existing defence accounts will be exhausted within weeks. The IDF's operational planning extends through at least Passover in mid-April, with deeper plans through mid-May . Iran's foreign minister has stated the country "never asked for a ceasefire" and "never asked even for negotiation" ³. A war that neither belligerent intends to stop has collided with a legislature that will not pay for it — and American governance has no mechanism designed to resolve that impasse while ordnance is already in the air.

The $19 billion figure does not capture the full fiscal exposure. Secretary of State Rubio bypassed congressional review to push through $16.5 billion in emergency arms sales to Kuwait, the UAE, and Jordan — weapons to defend the very Gulf States whose infrastructure Iran is destroying in retaliation for the American campaign. Representative Gregory Meeks said the waiver showed "lack of preparation for the war." Israel approved NIS 2.6 billion (~$826 million) in emergency defence procurement of its own . The cost of the war is being distributed across allied defence budgets, but the central question remains in Washington: who authorises expenditure of $900 million every day it continues, and what happens when nobody does?

Deep Analysis

In plain English

The US is spending $900 million every single day — enough to fund the entire US Department of Education for roughly a week, repeated daily. Unlike ground wars, where costs spread across troops and logistics, this operation burns money primarily on precision munitions: a Tomahawk cruise missile costs approximately $2 million; a THAAD interceptor roughly $12.5 million. The US is consuming in weeks stockpiles built over decades. Critically, the defence industrial base cannot replenish at anything near this rate. Tomahawk production runs in the hundreds per year. Once stockpiles are depleted, they cannot be quickly rebuilt — meaning the capacity to sustain this tempo has a hard ceiling that no amount of congressional funding can immediately overcome.

Deep Analysis

Synthesis

The $19 billion expended to date must be read against the IAEA and US intelligence community's joint assessment that Iran's nuclear capacity cannot be militarily eliminated. The US is spending $900 million daily toward a declared objective its own intelligence community assesses as unachievable. No modern American military operation has exhibited this gap between expenditure rate and attainable strategic outcome.

Root Causes

The $900 million daily rate reflects the structural economics of precision-munitions warfare: each strike wave consumes stockpiles accumulated over years of peacetime procurement at rates the defence industrial base was never designed to replenish quickly. The root cause is a strategic doctrine — precision air power — whose peacetime logistics assumptions do not survive contact with sustained high-intensity conflict.

Escalation

The bipartisan spending impasse combined with the $900 million daily burn rate creates a mathematical constraint on operational tempo, not merely a political one. Existing defence accounts will exhaust within weeks without the supplemental. A perceived US capacity ceiling could encourage Iran or its proxies to accelerate operations rather than de-escalate — turning a domestic funding standoff into a battlefield signal.

What could happen next?

Risk
Pentagon draw-down of readiness accounts to sustain operations may degrade US deterrence posture in the Taiwan Strait and Korean Peninsula simultaneously and invisibly.
Immediate · Suggested
Risk
If Congress blocks the $200 billion supplemental, operational tempo may fall within weeks — potentially signalling a capacity ceiling to Tehran at a critical juncture.
Short term · Assessed
Consequence
Munitions stockpile depletion will require years of industrial replenishment, constraining US capacity to respond to concurrent crises in other theatres long after the conflict ends.
Medium term · Assessed
Precedent
Sustaining a $19 billion-plus operation without congressional authorisation normalises executive warmaking at historically unprecedented expenditure rates, weakening the War Powers framework durably.
Long term · Assessed

Source Landscape

This story draws on neutral-leaning sources from United Kingdom

United Kingdom

Primary parallel: Gulf War I (1990–91) cost the United States approximately $290 million per day in then-year dollars — roughly $650–700 million in 2025 terms across its seven-month duration. Operation EPIC FURY's $900 million daily rate exceeds this in real terms. Gulf War I had explicit UN and congressional authorisation and allied cost-sharing that reduced US net expenditure to under $10 billion.

Counter-parallel: The Iraq War at its 2007 surge peak ran approximately $400–500 million per day in then-year dollars, sustained through emergency supplemental appropriations despite contested authorisation. That operation had 34-nation Coalition participation distributing some burden; Operation EPIC FURY appears to bear its costs largely without comparable sharing.

Why it’s relevant now

Both precedents achieved maximum political sustainability through multilateral legitimacy and cost-sharing frameworks absent here. The same daily expenditure rate is structurally more fragile without either coalition burden-sharing or congressional authorisation.

The $19 billion expended in three weeks represents approximately one-third of the entire US annual foreign aid budget (~$60 billion), reordering federal spending priorities without a congressional vote. Defence contractor equities — Raytheon/RTX, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman — typically surge during sustained US operations, but munitions draw-down creates replenishment demand that takes years to fulfil, locking in elevated procurement budgets long after the conflict ends.

The Jones Act 60-day waiver and Venezuelan oil sales authorisation are emergency interventions with limited near-term effect. Venezuelan crude production cannot scale meaningfully within weeks, and the Jones Act waiver addresses coastal US distribution inefficiencies rather than the global LNG shortfall created by the Ras Laffan strikes.

Consensus view: The American Enterprise Institute's defence economics team has documented that US precision-munitions stockpiles were already under strain from Ukraine transfers; Operation EPIC FURY compounds this deficit at an unprecedented rate. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) notes that $900 million per day would exhaust the entire annual defence budgets of most NATO member states within weeks.

Counter-view: The Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences has argued that US defence spending crises historically resolve through emergency supplemental appropriations, citing the 2007 Iraq surge. It assesses the current congressional impasse as more likely to produce a scaled-back authorisation than a full operational halt.

Key tension: Whether the industrial-base constraint — munitions depletion — or the political constraint — congressional refusal — becomes binding first determines the operational ceiling.

First Reported In

Update #42 · Iran hits four countries; Brent at $119

International Institute for Strategic Studies· 20 Mar 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

Caused by

$900 million a day: the war's burn rate

CSIS $900 million daily rate extrapolated to $19 billion over three weeks of continuous operations

Occurred 16 Mar 2026

Read story →

This Event

$19bn war bill Congress will not fund

The war is sustained by neither formal congressional authorisation nor approved funding. Senate Republicans blocked the War Powers Resolution; bipartisan opposition now threatens the spending request. Without new appropriations, existing defence accounts will be exhausted within weeks.

Different Perspectives

Sanctions compliance officer reviewing a Lukoil International GmbH bid

OFAC's amended FAQ 1224 gives a compliance desk its first published standard: full severance from Lukoil and a US-jurisdiction blocked account for sale proceeds. The conditions name neither ISAB nor Italy, so a Priolo Gargallo-linked bid answers a different question than a Neftochim Burgas or Petrotel Ploiesti one.

Managed-money funds on Brent Last Day

CFTC data for the week to 21 July showed managed money flipping 74,400 contracts to a net long of 15,665 against 1,410 short on the Brent Last Day contract, code 06765T. A fund that held that short through July has now covered it, and the spent short base raises the bar for the next leg higher.

Saudi crude exporters

Saudi-linked tanker transits through Bab el-Mandeb fell to about 7.5 a day after the 24 July underwriting withdrawal, pushing more barrels onto the longer route round the Cape or through the Yanbu terminal. Every diverted barrel ties up a ship for longer, and a fleet that turns slower charges more.

Tanker owners on the Bab el-Mandeb route

Lloyd's-market syndicates withdrew war-risk cover from Saudi-linked hulls on 24 July, leaving owners of that class of vessel to sail Bab el-Mandeb uninsured or not at all. Tanker transits on the route fell to roughly 7.5 a day, and cover, once withdrawn, does not return on a shipowner's timetable.

Eni

Eni's board approved second-quarter results on 29 July, swinging refining EBIT to a EUR0.08bn profit from a year-earlier loss even as group profit doubled, and named Red Sea freight cost as a cap on that improvement. A refiner absorbing higher shipping costs on Saudi-linked crude while its numbers improve treats the freight line as a drag, not a crisis.

Asian buyers (India, Japan, China, South Korea)

Asian refiners are absorbing 62% of Yanbu's 3.75m b/d flow, the bulk of Saudi Arabia's rerouted crude now clearing east rather than into the Atlantic basin. That destination split leaves Asian buyers more exposed to any single Yanbu-specific disruption than under the kingdom's normal multi-terminal export pattern.