Republicans Start to Rebel as Trump Asks for $200 Billion for Iran War

Republicans in Congress may not be on board with sending hundreds of billions of dollars in additional funding for the war with Iran.

The Department of Defense asked the White House for over $200 billion in additional funding for the war, and that price tag is proving to be too steep for even Donald Trump’s allies. Representative Lauren Boebert told CNN Thursday that “I am a no. I have already told leadership. I am a no on any war supplemental. I am so tired of spending money over there.”

“I have folks in Colorado who can’t afford to live. We need America first policies right now,” Boebert added. While other Republicans haven’t come out as a firm no like her, they are expressing misgivings with the staggering cost attached to the war, which could make the Pentagon request dead on arrival.

“What are we doing? We’re talking about boots on the ground. We’re talking about that kind of extended activity. Now we’re in a whole ‘nother zip code,” Representative Chip Roy said to the news outlet. “They got a whole lot more briefing and a whole lot more explaining to do on how we’re going to pay for it, and what’s the mission here?”

One of Trump’s few Republican critics in Congress, Representative Thomas Massie, echoed concerns about the cost and the time frame of the war.

“It begs the question, how long do they plan to be there? What are the goals? Is this the first $200 billion? Does this turn into a trillion?” Massie asked.

Senator Lisa Murkowski said that she wouldn’t approve any more funding for the war until the Trump administration explained its plans to Congress.

“The people in Alaska are asking me how long is this going on? Are there going to be boots on the ground, how much is this going to cost?” Murkowski told CNN Thursday. “The answer to most of this is I don’t know.”

Trump’s actual goal for the war still isn’t clear, as members of his administration—and Israeli officials—have offered shifting explanations. In a Thursday congressional hearing, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard admitted that the U.S. and Israel aren’t aligned on the war’s endgame, saying that Trump is more focused on Iran’s offensive weapons capability while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seeking total regime change, which would require more funding and more time.

If that means ground troops, more Republicans may openly come out and oppose the war going any further. Representative Tim Burchett told CNN, “I think we need to find an exit strategy as fast as possible. I don’t want to put Americans on the ground out there in any shape, form or fashion.”

National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard admitted that there are key differences in the Israeli and U.S. goals in their joint war on Iran.

At a House hearing on Thursday, Democratic Representative Joaquin Castro asked Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and a panel of other intelligence operatives if the U.S. and Israel are “aligned” on the war. Gabbard used a lot of words to confirm that the answer was essentially “no.”

“The objectives that have been laid out by the president are different from the objectives that have been laid out by the Israeli government,” Gabbard testified. “We can see through the operations that the Israeli government has been focused on disabling the Iranian leadership and taking out several members, obviously beginning with the ayatollah, the supreme leader, and they continue to focus on that.”

“How does that differ from our goals?” Castro continued.

“The president has stated that his objectives are to destroy Iran’s ballistic missile–launching capability, their ballistic missile production capability, and their navy, the IRGC navy, and mine-laying capability,” Gabbard replied.

While both options are destructive, it seems that the stated Israeli objective is a long, drawn-out regime change war—as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pushing for for decades—while the United States, at least initially, seemed to leave the option of an off-ramp open. These two competing aims can only coexist for so long.

Donald Trump claimed Thursday that $200 billion more going to an unpopular, illegal overseas war wasn’t all that big a deal.

During a White House meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, Trump was asked about the Pentagon’s request to Congress for $200 billion to support the ongoing war in Iran. The request was first reported on Wednesday by The Washington Post.

After waffling about how good U.S. anti-air equipment was at shooting Iranian missiles down, Trump said that the money was “a small price to pay to make sure that we stay tippy-top.”

The Pentagon’s request may struggle to pass Congress, as even some Republicans are beginning to balk at the amount being spent on the unpopular war.

The first six days of the war cost taxpayers over $11.3 billion. In addition to this $200 billion request, Trump has petitioned Congress to increase the defense budget by $500 billion to $1.5 trillion in 2027, which would be by far the highest figure ever. (The Pentagon has yet to submit its official 2027 budget request.)

It all looks like a slap in the face for average Americans, who face a struggling economy at home: Inflation is rising, job creation is low, and gas prices are through the roof. Trump has blown through the money saved by cutting medical research grants and food bank programs, leaving “America First” feeling more and more like a pipe dream.

As President Donald Trump bragged once again Thursday about how the war was essentially over, Iran is believed to have hit its first U.S. military jet since the war began.

A U.S. military aircraft flying a combat mission was struck by what is suspected to be an Iranian missile and forced to make an emergency landing in the Middle East. A U.S. F-35 fighter jet costs upward of $100 million. “The aircraft landed safely, and the pilot is in stable condition,” said Capt. Tim Hawkins, a spokesperson for the U.S. Central Command. “This incident is under investigation.”

Additionally, fallen shrapnel struck the Bazan oil refinery in Haifa, Israel, but did not cause “significant damage,” according to Israel’s energy minister. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps said that it had targeted refineries across Israel, but it wasn’t clear if another refinery had been hit.

While Iran continued to launch retaliatory attacks, Trump continued to claim a premature victory.

Speaking to Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi Thursday, Trump once again bragged about the destruction of Iran’s military capability.

“We’ve demolished—their country is close to demolished,” Trump said. “The only thing is the Strait. It’s very hard, you could take two people and they could drop little bombs in the water, and they’re holding things up. But we don’t want that to happen.”

Trump was referring to the Strait of Hormuz, where global trade has come to an abrupt halt due to the threat of Iranian strikes and mines.

FBI Director Kash Patel doesn’t want to take responsibility for his decision to fire an entire team of Iran experts days before the Trump administration attacked the country.

On Thursday, Patel was called to testify about national security before the House Select Committee on Intelligence, and Democratic Representative Steve Cohen confronted Patel and asked him when he knew about the administration’s plans to attack Iran.

Initially, Patel said that he’d answer that question in a classified setting, but when Cohen pressed him further, he admitted he knew more than a month before. Cohen then got to the heart of the problem.

“With that knowledge, why did you fire at least a dozen agents in Counterintelligence Unit 12 that specializes in Iran counterintelligence, which makes us much less secure and safe with this war going on from Iranian attacks potentially against our country?” the Tennessee congressman asked.

“I don’t work on timelines when these terminations occur,” Patel replied, saying the firings were the result of unethical or inappropriate behavior. Cohen pressed Patel on whether the people fired were Iran experts, to which Patel said he didn’t believe so.

“They worked in counterintelligence, did they not?” Cohen replied, his voice rising. Patel replied, “I’m taking you at your word sir, I’m not familiar with—”

“You’re the director, I’m not,” Cohen interrupted. “You should know the answer. You fired the people. Where did they work?”

Patel said that the employees were fired for ethical violations, to which Cohen asked if those ethical violations concerned classified documents found in Donald Trump’s bathroom at Mar-a-Lago. Patel said he wouldn’t comment on pending litigation.

It’s hard to believe Patel was intimately familiar with the employees’ ethics violations but had no information about what their jobs even were. Throughout his tenure at the FBI, Patel has done little but promote himself, party on the taxpayer’s dime, and give Trump whatever he wants, including revenge for the bureau’s criminal investigations into the president. Evidently, protecting the American public from threats is a lesser priority.

On Thursday, President Trump was asked why he didn’t warn Japan before he decided to attack Iran last month. His response, in front of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi: “Who knows better about surprise than Japan?” 

“Japan and U.S. are very good friends. But … why didn’t you tell U.S. allies in Europe and Asia like Japan about the war before attacking Iran?” a Japanese reporter asked Trump during his meeting with Takaichi. “We are very confused.” 

“Well one thing, we didn’t wanna signal too much, you know? When we go in, we went in very hard, and we didn’t tell anybody about it because we wanted surprise,” Trump replied. “Who knows better about surprise than Japan? Why didn’t you tell me about Pearl Harbor? OK?” Trump said in jest.

The dark joke got some laughs and one sigh. Takaichi looked visibly tense, and struggled to keep the smile she had previously maintained on her face. 

Trump was of course referring to Japan’s 1941 surprise attack on the U.S. Pearl Harbor naval base in Oahu, Hawaii, which killed 2,403 U.S. servicemen and civilians and led to the U.S. entry into World War II. This attack—and U.S. propaganda about it—resulted in a flourishing of anti-Japanese racism at home, including “jap hunts” and the brutal forced internment of about 120,000 Japanese people on the West Coast of the U.S.  

The U.S. knows something about surprise too. It ended the war by dropping two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing more than 200,000 civilians in one of the most abominable crimes of war in human history. But things might not have been so funny anymore had Takaichi mentioned that.  

The Department of Homeland Security under Kristi Noem turned into an ATM for Republican operatives hoping to make a buck off of multimillion-dollar contracts.

Two companies with ties to Kristi Noem’s inner circle raked in millions of dollars from government contracts, Politico reported Thursday.

Safe America Media, which was formed just eight days before it received a massive $220 million ad contract, received at least $15.2 million from a 12 percent commission, according to an internal DHS memo and three people familiar with contracts. The second firm, People Who Think, received at least $7.7 million from its 10 percent commission on a portion of the $220 million, according to the memo. The memo noted that there was only a “limited competition” for the contracts, due to an “urgent and compelling need,” and that the commission rates were beneath industry standard.

Safe America Media LLC then subcontracted Strategy Group, a media company headed by the husband of Tricia McLaughlin, who served as a spokesperson for the DHS. The outgoing secretary was reportedly put in touch with the agency by Corey Lewandowski, Donald Trump’s former adviser and Noem’s rumored beau.

McLaughlin said that Safe America Media was reportedly selected for the contract because of the men who ran it: veteran GOP media operative Mike McElwain and his top ad maker, Patrick McCarthy. The duo have ties to a firm that did extensive media buying for Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. People Who Think was co-founded by Jay Connaughton, who worked for Trump’s 2016 campaign. The firm worked on a campaign for Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry that also hired Lewandowski and Strategy Group.

The flashing signs indicating corruption don’t stop there.

Lewandowski asked the country’s largest private prison company for bribes in return for receiving contracts from the DHS, according to an exclusive report Thursday from NBC News.

During the presidential transition, Lewandowski told George Zoley, the founder and executive chairman of GEO Group, that he wanted payment in return for fostering DHS contracts with the company, a senior DHS official and three people familiar with their discussion told NBC News. At the time, Zoley didn’t want anything to do with the deal.

Months later, after Lewandowski had officially secured a gig as a “special government employee” and top adviser to Noem, Zoley offered to put him on retainer and pay a recurring consulting fee, two industry sources familiar with the matter told NBC News. This time, it was Lewandowski who balked. He wanted to be paid in proportion to the contracts GEO Group secured from DHS. Zoley declined again.

Within weeks of that meeting, Lewandowski told a senior DHS official not to award any more contracts to GEO Group, the senior official told NBC News. GEO Group eventually received a new $121 million contract with DHS in December 2025. GEO Group already held multiple federal contracts worth a total of $1 billion per year.

It’s not clear that Lewandowski received any money for securing government contracts—but it seems he certainly tried. His spokesperson denied that these interactions ever took place.

National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard had her past quotes against war on Iran broadcast at a House intelligence hearing—and was asked why they contradict her current statements.

Democratic Representative Ami Bera put Gabbard in the hot seat when he highlighted her warning on the House floor following Trump’s killing of Iranian military officer Qassem Soleimani in 2020.

At the time, Gabbard had decried President Trump’s killing of Soleimani as an “illegal and unconstitutional act of war that President Trump took,” and said that it would make brutal U.S. forever wars in Iraq and Afghanistan “look like a picnic.”

“Director Gabbard, do you still believe that strikes against Iran that don’t have congressional authorization constitute an illegal and unconstitutional act of war?” Bera asked.

“The cost of war weighs very heavily upon me and my colleagues here.... My own personal and political views, as I mentioned earlier—I was asked and required by Congress and by the president in this role as the director of national intelligence to check those views at the door to ensure that the intelligence assessments are not colored by my personal views,” Gabbard replied.

“Do you still believe that war with Iran would be so costly and devastating that it would ‘make our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan look like a picnic’?” Bera asked, quoting Gabbard again.

“Once again, in this role, it is essential that I do not allow any of my personal views on any issues to color or bias the intelligence reporting that we deliver to you and to the president.”

Gabbard spent much of the hearing trying to separate herself from her past statements, while refusing to criticize Trump’s war directly.

“Director Gabbard … there is no imminent threat of nuclear breakout,” Bera pointed out earlier in the hearing. “Did you deliver that assessment to the president?”

“I have delivered the intelligence community’s assessments to the president,” she replied, refusing to elaborate further.

It’s obvious that Gabbard believes we should not be at war with Iran right now. If that’s the case, she should make like her colleague Joe Kent and write that resignation letter.

In response to skyrocketing oil prices as a result of the war with Iran, the Trump administration is considering lifting sanctions on the country it is currently bombing.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Fox Business Thursday morning that “we had a break-the-glass plan across the administration, and at Treasury we unsanctioned Russian oil.”

“In the coming days, we may un-sanction the Iranian oil that’s on the water,” Bessent added, claiming that their oil would amount to about “10 days to two weeks of supply that the Iranians had been pushing out that would have all gone to China.”

Iranian oil has been sanctioned in some form since 1979, and the idea that the Trump administration would consider easing sanctions while starting a war with Iran seems counterintuitive, giving the country an economic lifeline. On Wednesday, the Trump administration lifted sanctions on Venezuelan oil, and last week, it eased sanctions on Russian oil despite the country’s ongoing war with Ukraine.

Does the White House have any long-term plans for its war with Iran? Trump was clearly caught off guard by Iran’s closure and mining of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical choke point in the Persian Gulf where much of the world’s oil flows, and by Iran’s decision to attack oil facilities of U.S. allies in the region.

Last year, the Trump administration chose to decommission several of its anti-mine ships, and also fired oil and gas experts from the State Department. Both moves have backfired, as the ships would be critical to help clear the strait and the experts could have helped prepare for this current oil crisis. Now the White House has been left scrambling to avert an economic crisis.

This story has been updated.

Senator Markwayne Mullin has secured the votes he needed to advance to a final floor vote in the upper chamber, all thanks to Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman.

Fetterman differed from his colleagues in the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee Thursday, voting alongside Republicans to advance Mullin’s nomination to the Senate floor.

The final committee tally was 8–7. Meanwhile, Republican Senator Rand Paul joined Democrats in rejecting Mullin’s appointment.

Fetterman has displayed a penchant for Trumpian politics since he moved to Washington, despite the fact that he ran on the progressive ticket. Since Fetterman entered office in 2023, he has sided with Republicans dozens of times, frequently leveraging his position to advance Donald Trump’s agenda. He also voted to confirm several of Trump’s Cabinet selections, including the last DHS chief, Kristi Noem, who was transferred to work in an unknown section of the government following a string of embarrassing scandals.

“In January, I called on the president to fire Noem—and he did,” Fetterman wrote in an X post Thursday, addressing his vote. “I truly approached the confirmation of my colleague and friend, Senator Mullin, with an open-mind.

“We need a leader at DHS. We must reopen DHS,” he continued. “My AYE is rooted in a strong committed, constructive working relationship with Senator Mullin for our nation’s security.”

Mullin has had his own tumultuous history in the Senate. In 2023, the Oklahoma Republican tried to brawl with International Brotherhood of Teamsters President Sean O’Brien. The hostile exchange was halted by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, but the fallout continued in the days after as Mullin refused to back down from the violence he started. Speaking with podcasters and broadcasters, Mullin invariably escalated the conflict, claiming he would “100 percent” bite and even duel the union boss.

He’s also promoted violence against and attacked his colleagues, spurring accusations that Mullin suffers from severe anger issues.

In a fiery exchange during his committee confirmation hearing Wednesday, Paul raked up Mullin’s reaction to a November 2017 incident in which the Kentucky lawmaker was attacked by his neighbor, leaving him with several broken ribs.

Paul charged that Mullin “went on to brag” that he had “completely understood and approved of the assault,” prompting Mullin to “explain to the American public why they should trust a man with anger issues to set the proper example for ICE and border patrol agents.”

Mullin’s response was that he was simply a blunt person and that he has had to “really pray about my attitude,” chalking his beef with Paul up to “political differences.”

Mullin also stood by a previous comment that he “understood” where Paul’s neighbor was coming from.

This story has been updated.