...
By Suzanne Blake
Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Democrats are arguing that the cost of President Donald Trump’s expanding military campaign in Iran is already rivaling and could soon exceed what it would have taken to extend the Affordable Care Act (ACA) health insurance subsidies that recently expired.
The war is estimated to cost as much as $1 billion per day, while congressional budget analyses show that extending enhanced ACA subsidies would have cost about $30 billion for one year or roughly $60 billion for two years.
Why It Matters
If the higher-end war estimates hold, Democrats say two months of fighting could cost more than a two‑year extension of health care subsidies for millions of Americans.
Read More on Politics
Based on this, Democratic leaders and candidates have increasingly framed the issue as a question of priorities. The Democratic Party says enhanced ACA subsidies are helping drive record enrollment, covering more than 22 million Americans.
...
How Much Is the Iran War Costing?
Several independent budget watchdogs and progressive policy groups have analyzed the early costs of U.S. military operations against Iran.
The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and the National Priorities Project (NPP) estimate that operating two aircraft carrier strike groups, hundreds of aircraft, and associated naval assets costs about $59 million per day. That does not include munitions, replacement of destroyed equipment, or longer‑term troop deployments.
However, Democrats and allied analysts point to a much larger figure based on briefings to Congress. The Democratic National Committee said the Pentagon estimate puts the cost closer to $1 billion per day once munitions, airstrikes, missile defense systems, and escalation risks are factored in.
“Even the most generous of polling indicates the current military conflict in Iran is overwhelmingly unpopular with most Americans,” Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek.
“For many living in the United States, the current focus is on the affordability crisis and, in some situations, being able to attain and maintain health care coverage despite job loss concerns and rising costs.”
What ACA Subsidy Extensions Would Have Cost
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) estimated that a one‑year extension of enhanced ACA subsidies would cost about $30 billion. Meanwhile, a two‑year extension would cost roughly $60 billion.
The Democratic National Committee said this month that “at the current rate, it will take less than 12 weeks for Trump to spend more on this war than it would have cost to extend ACA subsidies for 22 million Americans.”
But the White House and congressional Republicans have rejected the comparison, arguing that national security spending cannot be weighed against domestic programs in isolation. Trump administration officials have defended the Iran campaign as necessary to deter Iranian aggression and prevent nuclear escalation.
"A short time ago, the United States military began major combat operations in Iran,” Trump said earlier this month. “Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard, terrible people. Its menacing activities directly endanger the United States, our troops our bases overseas and our allies throughout the world.”
Republicans have also referred to the subsidies as expensive, temporary pandemic‑era measures that prop up what they describe as a flawed health care system.
“For Democrats and some independents running for office in 2026, this is going to be a pivotal talking point and one that hits much closer to home for voters than war in the Middle East,” Beene said.
“With eight months to go until the midterms, it's going to be interesting to see if we see Republicans ultimately pivot back to these issues or do their best to navigate difficult election waters with war being one of the points they'll have to defend.”
What People Are Saying
Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, said in a video posted this month on X: “It is so much worse than you thought. You are right to be worried. Trump Administration has no plan in Iran. This illegal war is based on lies, and it was launched without any imminent threat to our nation.”
Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: “When you run a country like a business, the costs don’t really compare. The United States sells arms and munitions, which generates revenue, while extending Medicare subsidies is viewed as a ‘sunk cost.’”
“Democrats are using this comparison as a philosophical differentiator between the parties. It allows them to flip the ‘America First’ narrative back on Republicans, arguing that the electorate expected domestic investment rather than increased military spending.”
Drew Powers, the founder of Illinois-based Powers Financial Group, told Newsweek: “It is probably an oversimplified argument, but one that attempts to illustrate the true monetary costs of different programs. It is basically saying, ‘If we have enough money for two months of war, shouldn’t we have enough money for two years of health care?’”
“Spending is a problem on both sides of the political aisle. The only time either side seems to worry about the deficit is when the other side is doing the spending. But it all adds up.”
What Happens Next
As tension and warfare continue in the Middle East, the U.S. will likely continue to be on the hook for billions of dollars, Thompson said.
“That spending pressure almost always leads to calls for an even larger military budget,” Thompson said. The current administration has already increased defense spending by roughly $600 billion, he added.
“Conflicts like this often become political turning points, and we’re already seeing early signals in special elections, with roughly 27 Republican-held state legislative seats flipping.”
In a polarized era, the center is dismissed as bland. At Newsweek, ours is different: The Courageous Center—it's not "both sides," it's sharp, challenging and alive with ideas. We follow facts, not factions. If that sounds like the kind of journalism you want to see thrive, we need you.
When you become a Newsweek Member, you support a mission to keep the center strong and vibrant. Members enjoy: Ad-free browsing, exclusive content and editor conversations. Help keep the center courageous. Join today.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines