Congressional Report Reveals US War on Iran Reaches $38 Billion as Munitions and Economic Pressures Mount

The United States' ongoing military campaign against Iran has accumulated a financial cost of $38 billion, with expenditures expected to expand by roughly $3 billion each month the conflict persists, according to an assessment published by the Congressional Budget Office. The nonpartisan fiscal evaluation underscores how the extended engagement is placing severe strain on domestic finances and national defense inventories.

The conflict, which the United States initiated in tandem with Israel on February 28, has now crossed into its seventh month. This timeline stands in stark contrast to early assertions from President Donald Trump, who initially projected that military operations would conclude within four to five weeks.

A major portion of the overall expense stems from the heavy consumption of military hardware. The budget office noted that $25 billion has been spent on munitions alone, warning that restoring depleted American stockpiles back to standard operational levels could require up to five years. Analysts emphasized that these depleted reserves present a substantial strategic hazard should the country encounter another military crisis elsewhere.

Beyond direct military outlays, the war is creating notable headwinds for the domestic economy. With Iran maintaining a blockade across the Strait of Hormuz—a crucial maritime corridor for worldwide crude shipments—international energy markets have experienced turbulence. The budgetary agency projected that the resulting disruptions will elevate domestic inflation by an additional 0.5 percentage points during the initial quarter of 2027.

The fiscal toll arrives at a delicate moment for the nation's broader balance sheet, coming shortly after the total United States national debt surpassed the $40 trillion threshold. Furthermore, the $38 billion tally does not account for interest payments on borrowed funds, which could add tens of billions more, nor does it factor in recent American strikes on vessels in the Strait of Hormuz or Iranian bombardments targeting regional US military installations.

The budget office's total closely mirrors previous disclosures from the executive branch, including testimony delivered by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during a Senate hearing on July 21, in which he cited expenditures of $37.5 billion.

The formal congressional review was initiated at the behest of Representative Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee. Boyle noted that the Department of Defense declined to cooperate with the inquiry, while lamenting the severe human toll of the operation, pointing to American service members who have been killed or wounded since operations began.

The findings from Capitol Hill arrive directly on the heels of a separate disclosure released by the Pentagon’s Office of the Inspector General. Covering the period between February 28 and June 30, the internal watchdog calculated that the war had absorbed $33 billion, including approximately $22 billion directed toward expended weaponry.

The inspector general's review marked the first formal public acknowledgement by defense officials that US inventories are experiencing serious shortages, particularly regarding defensive systems and critical interceptors, while also identifying significant bottlenecks across manufacturing supply lines.

These internal findings diverge sharply from public assurances made by the Trump administration, which has consistently dismissed reports of armaments shortages, with the president asserting that the nation possesses an almost limitless reserve of ammunition. Both the White House and the Pentagon have continued to contest the munitions deficit assessments published by the budget office.

The Pentagon watchdog's documentation also detailed substantial structural and material losses sustained throughout the Middle East up through late June. Iranian retaliatory strikes resulted in $184 million in damage to American facilities across the Gulf region, took the lives of at least 18 US military personnel, and damaged or destroyed dozens of aircraft, including a minimum of 30 MQ-9 Reaper drones.

These mounting military and economic strains have accelerated legislative resistance on Capitol Hill. In a recent legislative push, the House of Representatives voted for a third time to bring the military campaign to an end, with seven Republican lawmakers crossing party lines to vote alongside a unified Democratic bloc.

Despite growing bipartisan backing in the House, the measure faces significant institutional hurdles. The resolution is widely expected to stall in the Republican-controlled Senate, and even if it were to clear both chambers of Congress, the president holds the power to issue a veto.

While the United States Constitution grants the legislative branch the sole authority to formally declare war, modern chief executives have routinely authorized expansive military campaigns under their commander-in-chief powers without prior legislative authorization. Precedents for such unilateral executive actions include President Harry Truman's deployment of armed forces to the Korean War in 1950 and President Richard Nixon's directive to invade Cambodia.

The deepening fiscal and material costs are also shaping the broader political landscape ahead of the looming November midterm elections. With high fuel prices and general living costs ranking among the chief anxieties for voters, public backing for the military campaign has dropped to an all-time low of 31 percent.