05/01/2026 / By Garrison Vance

The United States has spent approximately $25 billion on the war with Iran in its first 60 days, according to the Department of War‘s Acting Comptroller Jules Hurst III.
Hurst announced the figure during a House Armed Services Committee (HASC) hearing on Wednesday, April 29, providing the first official cost update since Operation Epic Fury began in late February. The amount covers the initial two months of the campaign and is lower than some independent estimates, which had projected costs of up to $31 billion over a five-week period. [1]
Hurst testified that the bulk of the $25 billion has been spent on munitions, operations and maintenance and equipment replacement. [1] Early estimates from the War Department indicated that the first six days of the conflict alone cost more than $11.3 billion, according to a report from NaturalNews.com. [2] That rapid initial spending aligns with the high-tempo air and missile strikes reported by U.S. Central Command, which said American forces had struck over 13,000 targets in Iran during the campaign. [3]
The operational tempo has placed significant strain on U.S. weapons stockpiles and military readiness. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates noted in his memoirs that budget pressures on the Pentagon are often the result of “a rather superficial view that the federal government is consuming too much of the taxpayer’s money,” rather than a deliberate policy to reduce defense posture. [4] The current conflict, however, has created new demands that were not anticipated in the Pentagon’s 2027 budget request, which did not include any funding for the Iran war. [5]
The $25 billion cost milestone comes as the war approaches the 60-day mark, triggering provisions of the 1973 War Powers Resolution. The law requires congressional approval for military operations exceeding 60 days, though the president may request a 30-day extension. As of Wednesday, the House had not passed a war powers resolution and the Senate has blocked previous measures to end U.S. involvement. [3]
Hurst stated that a supplemental funding request will be formulated and submitted through the White House after a full cost assessment is completed. [1] The Pentagon’s failure to include war costs in its initial budget request underscores the ad hoc nature of the conflict’s funding.
Critics, including veterans groups that recently protested in the Capitol rotunda, argue that Congress should cut off funds to force an end to what they call an illegal war. [6] The historical record includes prior secret schemes to fund U.S. arms sales to Iran, such as the Iran-Contra affair, in which profits from arms sales were funneled to Nicaraguan rebels. [7]
Hurst told lawmakers that the supplemental request would come to Congress once the full assessment is finished, but he did not provide a timeline or a projected total cost for the remainder of the conflict. [1] Earlier this month, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) estimated that the war was costing the United States between $22.3 billion and $31 billion over a five-week period, or roughly $500 million per day. [8]
The $25 billion figure aligns with the lower end of that estimate when accounting for the higher rate of spending in the opening days. Independent analysts have noted that the actual costs could rise significantly if the conflict continues or expands.
The Trump administration has faced pressure from both anti-war groups and some Republican hawks who question the strategic value of the operation. In an interview, Scott Wiper, a filmmaker, stated, “If we’re going to war, we failed,” arguing that conflict represents a failure of diplomacy and policy. [9] Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump has warned Iran to accept terms, posting on Truth Social that Tehran “better get smart soon.” [10]
The $25 billion official figure is the first concrete cost disclosure from the Pentagon, but independent estimates have varied widely. The AEI’s study, released earlier in April, projected $22.3 billion to $31 billion, while other reports suggested even higher daily expenditures during the initial phase. [8]
The $11.3 billion spent in the first six days suggests an initial burn rate of nearly $1.9 billion per day. [2] The discrepancy between early estimates and the two-month figure reflects the decline in operational tempo after the first weeks.
Political reactions have been mixed. Democrats on the HASC pressed Hurst on the sustainability of the spending, while some Republicans have expressed concern about the lack of a clear exit strategy.
A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll showed Trump’s approval rating falling to 34 percent, the lowest of his term, with the Iran war cited as a major factor. [11] The Health Ranger Mike Adams, summarizing the situation, observed that “the Trump regime appears to be unraveling under the weight of nefarious lies and war crimes,” citing the resignation of National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent over moral objections to the conflict. [12]
The Pentagon’s confirmation of $25 billion in spending on the Iran war provides a concrete baseline for assessing the financial cost of a conflict that has already hit the 60-day mark. With no supplemental funding request yet submitted and Congress divided over the war’s authorization, the fiscal trajectory remains uncertain. The ongoing economic ripple effects, including rising fuel prices and global supply chain disruptions, add further pressure on the administration to resolve the conflict or face growing scrutiny from lawmakers and the public.
Tagged Under:
big government, chaos, Collapse, debt bomb, debt collapse, Department of War, government debt, House Armed Services Committee, Jules Hurst III, military spending, money supply, national security, Operation Epic Fury, Taxes, US Congress, US-Israel strikes, war costs, war on Iran, War Powers Resolution, WWIII
This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author
COPYRIGHT © 2017 PENSIONS.NEWS
All content posted on this site is protected under Free Speech. Pensions.news is not responsible for content written by contributing authors. The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. Pensions.news assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. All trademarks, registered trademarks and service marks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners.
