Six months into President Donald Trump’s unpopular and unsuccessful war in Iran, congressional Republicans are about to face an August recess reckoning. Republican lawmakers who voted for $73 billion in war funding just last week, while doing nothing to lower costs for struggling families, are heading home to constituents who are paying more at the pump and the grocery store, backing a war effort even many Republican voters do not support. Just as the backlash against the Affordable Care Act defined the 2010 recess and reshaped that year’s elections, Republicans’ Iran War votes are poised to define this year’s midterms. As lawmakers return to their districts, they will find themselves increasingly out of step with voters who want relief from rising costs, not more spending on endless war.
Trump’s Iran War is intensifying, unpopular, and out of step with Americans’ priorities
As the United States approaches its sixth month at war in Iran, the conflict has entered a new, less predictable phase that risks becoming even costlier than its first five months. To date, the war has cost at least $37.5 billion while failing to accomplish the administration’s stated objectives, including preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, eliminating its ballistic missile program, and overthrowing the regime—and in fact has exacerbated each. With the collapse of the tenuous June 17 ceasefire, Trump has doubled down on a failed military strategy, conducting airstrikes against hundreds of Iranian targets that include civilian sites such as bridges, power plants, and desalinization plants. In support of this campaign, the administration has recently dispatched more U.S. military assets to the Middle East at the expense of other American priorities. This includes the deployment of B-1B Lancer strategic bombers, additional F-16 and F-35 fighter jet squadrons, aerial refueling planes, special operations forces, and another 150 medical personnel. Despite the damage wrought by renewed U.S. attacks on Iranian infrastructure, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth acknowledged that the Iranians “still have capabilities, no doubt,” including the ability to hit U.S. bases as far away as Jordan and in partner countries in the Persian Gulf.
It is therefore unsurprising, though no less tragic, that mid-July brought one of the deadliest stretches for American military personnel since the start of the war: Four U.S. service members were killed between July 17 and July 19. Pvt. Isabella Gonzales, 19, of Carrollton, Texas; 1st Lt. Tyler James Feehan, 25, of Ewa Beach, Hawaii; and Sgt. Angel S. Rampersad, 28, of Queens, New York, died in an Iranian missile strike in Jordan. Sgt. Michael Emmanuel Swinton, 30, of Fayetteville, North Carolina, was killed in northern Iraq during the controlled detonation of a downed Iranian attack drone. Their deaths brought the total number of American service members killed in the war to 18, with an additional 447 injured since the conflict began. According to trusted independent estimates, at least 1,721 Iranian civilians have also been killed in the war.
Demonstrating the inefficacy of Trump’s war, Iran has not only continued to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed, but with the cooperation of Yemen’s Houthis has expanded the war to another vital chokepoint. The Iranian-aligned Houthis’ declaration that they were blockading Saudi traffic and subsequent strikes on oil tankers risk closing the Bab al-Mandeb Strait between the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, through which 7 million barrels of oil transit each day. Long a critical commercial link between Europe and Asia, the Bab al-Mandeb has assumed even greater importance during the war as Gulf Arab states divert oil from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea via the East-West pipeline, which transmits 3.6 million barrels of oil per day and is one of only a few overland oil transit routes in the Arabian Peninsula.
69%
Percentage of Americans who disapprove of Trump’s handling of the war.
Given that the administration has failed to demonstrate progress toward achieving its stated objectives even as the costs to Americans continue to mount, it is unsurprising that Trump’s war in Iran is historically unpopular. A Washington Post/Ipsos survey earlier this month found that Americans disapproved of Trump’s handling of the war in Iran by a 40-point margin (69 percent disapprove, 29 percent approve). That was a significant and rapid drop from a Post/Ipsos poll in early March, shortly after the war began, which showed 39 percent of the public backed Trump’s strikes against Iran and 52 percent opposed. A recent analysis by CNN’s Aaron Blake detailed how more Americans believed that the Iran War is not worth fighting than believed the same of America’s wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. Two months into the war, the share of Americans who viewed the Iran War as a mistake was on par with the share of Americans who believed the same about the war in Vietnam more than six years into the conflict. And, in perhaps the clearest sign of the widespread disillusionment with the Trump administration’s handling of the conflict, a Politico poll conducted from July 13 to July 15—before the recent U.S. casualties and rise in gas prices—found that just 37 percent of self-described MAGA voters believed that the war should continue.
Sixty-six percent of Americans—including a majority of Republicans—believe that President Trump is more focused on the Iran War than on lowering costs for everyday Americans.
As this unpopular war enters its sixth month and consumes the work of lawmakers on Capitol Hill, it is unsurprising that Americans increasingly feel like Republicans in Washington have the wrong priorities. Now, 66 percent of Americans—including a majority of Republicans—believe that President Trump is more focused on the Iran War than on lowering costs for everyday Americans, according to new polling from Groundwork Collaborative.
While Americans struggle with high prices, the high costs of Trump’s war are increasingly apparent
The impact of Trump’s war with Iran is becoming increasingly apparent to everyday Americans already struggling with the high cost of living. As of July 25, the national average price for a gallon of gasoline was $4.11, up about 40 percent relative to prices in February, resulting in households paying, on average, $305 more in gasoline expenses. And the administration is running out of options to stabilize gas prices, as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is down to 311 million barrels, its lowest level since March 1983, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data.
The EIA’s benchmark for diesel prices jumped nearly 34 cents last week to $5.13 per gallon, the biggest weekly climb since the first week of March, just after the war with Iran began. Diesel is the primary fuel source for long-haul trucking, so higher prices are likely to show up in consumer goods as a result of higher transportation costs. The EIA benchmark is also used to determine fuel surcharges that airlines and other companies impose on consumers, and thus should be watched closely, as the knock-on effects can result in higher prices across the economy. Before the now-defunct ceasefire was agreed to, the ripple effects of higher fuel costs spurred by the war helped push inflation to its highest level in more than three years.
As of July 24, West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude futures were trading at just under $90 per barrel, and Brent crude futures were trading at close to $100 per barrel. If hostilities continue and the supply of oil through the Strait of Hormuz remains disrupted, experts project oil prices could exceed $120 per barrel. Prices could even rise above the high since the start of the war if the Houthis follow through on their threat to fully block the Red Sea, which could displace 4 percent of global oil supply. Already, tankers have turned around rather than pass through the Bab al-Mandeb Strait in response to these threats.
But the war’s impact on Americans’ finances is not limited to higher fuel costs. Americans are likely to see higher borrowing costs because of the conflict. The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield reached 4.71 percent on July 23—its highest level since Trump began his second term. Prior to the war with Iran, the 10-year yield dipped below 4 percent. As a result, the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate increased to 6.58 percent this week, the highest level in almost a year.
Republicans are in lockstep behind Trump’s war while doing nothing to help Americans
Despite the public souring on the president’s handling of the war and being squeezed financially by its fallout, congressional Republicans remain committed to rubber-stamping his agenda. Congressional Republicans are moving forward with a partisan process known as “reconciliation” to ram through $73 billion to fund Trump’s war in Iran, largely mirroring the supplemental appropriations request the White House made earlier in the year—despite still having more than $80 billion left unused of the $150 billion in Pentagon funding provided in the Big Beautiful Bill as of the beginning of July.
That is not to say Republicans are unaware that they are backing a failed and unpopular war. Just consider their own words. Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-IA), who is running for U.S. Senate in Iowa, called the war a “political liability.” Several other vulnerable House members have tried to distance themselves from the war—and their votes to continue it—by downplaying the threat of prolonged conflict and stressing their opposition to another “forever war.” In March, Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ) said he supported “end[ing] the conflict immediately.” In May, he said he believed the conflict was “very close to being over.” In April, Rep. Zach Nunn (R-IA) called for the war to be “resolved speedily.” Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA) called for the military intervention to “remain focused and limited” and believed that the war should be “a short-lived conflict.” In March, Rep. Chuck Edwards (R-NC) said that he had “no reason to believe that this is going to be an elongated war.” Each of these members has voted three times against war powers resolutions to stop the war and voted just last week in support of giving the Trump administration the aforementioned $73 billion in additional war funding. Even two of the four House Republicans who have joined with Democrats to back the two most recent war powers resolutions—Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Tom Barrett (R-MI)—voted to advance the budget measure to provide $73 billion in more war funding.
This money for war is a missed opportunity to help struggling Americans. For $73 billion, Congress could fund free school meals for all kids in America, which would save families $945 per child each year, and provide Medicaid coverage to more than 5 million people for one year. Just last year, Trump and congressional Republicans pushed through the largest cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Medicaid in history, which are already causing school districts, such as Miami-Dade County Public Schools, to end students’ access to free school meals and will lead to 10 million more people being uninsured by 2034. Alternatively, $73 billion could provide one year of vision and hearing for Medicare recipients, or it could provide more than 8 million students with free tuition for an associate degree, or it could provide child care for more than 5 million children for one year.
Congressional Republicans are facing increasing political backlash at home for backing the Iran War
The 2026 midterm elections are less than 100 days away. Republicans in Congress are taking heat for supporting policies, such as the Iran War, that are making life more expensive for everyday Americans. As they return to their districts this week, they will find themselves increasingly out of touch with voters and under fire in local media, online, on the airwaves, and at events in their communities.
Here is a sampling of headlines confronting Republican members in battleground districts this week:
Voters are airing frustration with the war online and are mobilizing in opposition at in-person events, including more than 70 residents in Pennsylvania’s 10th Congressional District gathering to oppose the Iran War, dozens of antiwar protesters in Ohio’s 10th Congressional District, and neighbors rallying in opposition to the war in Colorado’s 8th Congressional District in Thornton, Colorado.
The Iran War has also become a prominent feature in paid media campaigns, which will scale dramatically in the coming weeks, targeting vulnerable Republicans. Take this recent ad from Honest Arizona and the League of Conservation Voters targeting Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ):
Think about this: Gas prices are rising and inflation is ticking up and up, but Juan Ciscomani still voted to do the following: increase your utility bill by more than $200 a year, cut clean energy production. He even voted to raise your gas prices. Yes, he really did. And you can learn more here. And after all that, he supported blank checks for a foreign war, billions for bombs, higher prices for you at home. Call Congressman Ciscomani and tell him to stop raising costs.
Or this recent ad from VoteVets targeting Senate nominee Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-IA):
In Iowa, Ashley Hinson likes to play the part. She says she supports Iowa farmers. But in Washington, she is someone else entirely. Five times Hinson has voted in favor of the war in Iran, even though no one’s been hit harder than Iowa. Record gas prices. Record fertilizer costs. Farms going under. And Ashley Hinson is voting for all of it in Washington. She plays the part in Iowa, but doesn’t do her part for us in D.C. Tell Ashley Hinson: Put Iowa first.
Senate Majority PAC revealed last week that it will spend an additional $54 million on paid ads this fall across four key swing states and that Republicans’ support for the Iran War would be one of three key focus areas for its paid media campaign.
Trump and congressional Republicans have dragged America into yet another prolonged war in the Middle East, and they are living in denial over the public’s outrage over their leadership. As members return home and confront the anger of their constituents, they will do so with a clear record of rubber-stamping the president’s war, which is making life less affordable—including supporting $73 billion more for the war just last week—while having nothing to offer their constituents here at home.
Methodology
To estimate the cost of covering more Medicaid recipients, the authors used projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on the federal cost of Medicaid this year. This analysis looks only at the federal share of the cost of Medicaid because it is focusing on choices the federal government makes; states would need to cover their share of the cost if more people were being enrolled in Medicaid as well. The average federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) in 2024 was 65 percent, so if the federal government were covering 100 percent of the cost—which is not how the program works—roughly 65 percent as many people could be covered.
To estimate the cost of providing child care to children, the authors used national estimates for the cost of child care in 2024 and then adjusted those costs for projected growth in the employment cost index from the CBO for 2024 through 2026 to adjust that estimate.
To estimate the cost of covering tuition at community college, the authors used national estimates for the cost of tuition at community college in 2025 and then adjusted those costs for projected growth in the Employment Cost Index from the CBO for 2025 through 2026 and 2025 through 2027 to adjust that estimate and cover two years for an associate degree.
To estimate the cost of providing hearing and vision to Medicare recipients, the authors used a CBO projection from 2019 and adjusted the estimates to reflect the inflation that actually happened over that time period, relative to the expected inflation baked into the assumptions, in order to account for post-COVID-19 inflation.
For all programs, the authors assumed the marginal cost of an additional person equals the average cost.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Andrew Miller, Bobby Kogan, Emily Gee, Ryan Mulholland, Courtney Federico, Shannon Baker-Branstetter, Mimla Wardak, Ryan Koronowski, Hannah McKiernan, and Becca Siegel for their research and fact-checking support.