OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

US Spending Billions Monthly on Iran War per CBO Report

14 sources · updated 2026-09-17
Left 0% Center 100% Right 0%
0 left · 2 center · 0 right

What happened

The Congressional Budget Office reported Tuesday that the war with Iran, which began February 28 when the United States and Israel launched a campaign against Iran, had directly cost the United States about $38 billion through August 1, excluding repairs to U.S. bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, and Jordan damaged by Iranian strikes. The nonpartisan office said reduced oil and natural gas shipments through the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea accounted for more than one-third of this year’s inflation increase and more than 40 percent of inflation in the second quarter of 2026, and it projected inflation about 0.5 percentage points higher than previously expected in the first quarter of 2027; U.S. gasoline was up 45 percent since the war began, to about $4.32 a gallon, and diesel was up 66 percent, to about $6.26. Replacing munitions expended through August 1 would cost an estimated $21.7 billion, including $13.1 billion for missile-defense interceptors that would probably take at least five years to rebuild; the CBO said purchase records indicated the United States had probably used between one-half and two-thirds of its interceptor inventory, and that the Defense Department did not respond to its information requests. A Pentagon inspector general report issued a day earlier estimated $33.4 billion in Defense Department costs through June 29, including $22.3 billion in expended munitions, and found the fighting had “resulted in strategic inventory shortfalls and revealed industrial base bottlenecks for munitions resupply.” The CBO estimated that sustaining the conflict at roughly the current intensity would cost about $2 billion to $3 billion per month.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 14 articles

11 of 14 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report. Donald Trump denied part of it on the record.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 11 of 14
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Congressional Budget Office, Anna Kelly, H.R. McMaster, Pentagon watchdog, Pentagon inspector general and House of Representatives
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 12 of 14
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: CBO report, official report, study, photographs
Credits another outlet 0 of 14
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 1 of 14
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
On-record denial 2
A named person or institution says the claim, or part of it, is not true. It is on the record — someone signed their name to it — but it is not confirmation, so it never counts toward On the record. Criticizing or dissenting from a decision is not a denial. The count is how many people or institutions deny it; each is listed with the first article that carried the denial. Here: Donald Trump (The Guardian, Sep 15, 21:47 UTC); Pete Hegseth (The Guardian, Sep 15, 21:47 UTC)
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 15, 18:49 UTC by NBC News, naming its source. First document in the first report, from NBC News (CBO report).
Not counted 0
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Readers of either side get only one ledger of the war's cost. Left-leaning coverage reports the CBO's $38 billion estimate for Pentagon spending through August and the agency's finding that the war is lifting inflation. Right-leaning coverage never cites that report. The Daily Caller instead counts extra household fuel spending from a Brown University study, putting the tab at $107 billion. Missing either figure changes whether the war looks like a Washington budget problem or a much larger hit on family energy bills. Left-leaning coverage leads with the CBO score and a munitions crisis. NBC News walks from inflation into depleted weapons and a Pentagon that would not share data. The Daily Caller never reaches those findings, opening instead on what households have already paid at the pump. What does the war cost once household fuel, unrepaired bases, and veterans' care are added to the Pentagon bill?
Bottom line

Anyone who read only the Daily Caller would not learn the CBO had scored the Iran war at $38 billion and blamed it for lifting U.S. inflation.

The receipts — 4 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • U.S. consumers spent $107 billion extra on gasoline and diesel during the war numberin Daily Caller · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • CBO says rebuilding the interceptor stockpile would probably take at least five years numberin NBC News, The Guardian · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • CBO projects the war will leave inflation 0.5 percentage points higher by early 2027 numberin ABC News, The Guardian · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Replacing missile-defense interceptors expended through Aug. 1 would cost $13.1 billion numberin NBC News, The Guardian · absent from right-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets frame the CBO report as showing Americans are paying for the war twice — in higher prices and a thinner arsenal — while the Pentagon withholds data and Congress has not enacted funding. NBC News, ABC News, and The Guardian stress the office’s inflation attribution, the interceptor rebuild timeline, and the inspector general’s matching shortfall finding, and they note that the cost estimate omits base repairs and long-term veterans’ care. Sen. Elizabeth Warren called the conflict “a one-two punch that’s burning a hole in Americans’ pockets and burning a hole in our munitions supply, hurting our military readiness.” Rep. Brendan Boyle, who requested the study, said President Trump and Republicans “can find tens of billions of dollars, and potentially much more, for a reckless war that is leaving Americans to pay the price” after years of arguing the country cannot afford help for families at home. Rep. Mark Takano said counting munitions while leaving out veterans’ care “is not a real war-cost analysis” but “a bill sent to veterans and taxpayers later.” Coverage also notes that the Senate has no plans to advance a House-passed war-funding blueprint before the midterm elections.
The Right View
The White House and Republican officials treat the CBO dollar figure as the price of confronting Iran after decades of inaction and reject claims of a munitions crisis. White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said that “for 47 years, American Presidents and countless other world leaders talked about the threat posed by Iran, but no one had the courage to address it,” that President Trump “took decisive action” so Iran “could never harm our homeland, our troops, or our allies again,” and that the military has “more than enough munitions.” Trump said the United States has “virtually unlimited amounts of mid- to high-grade ammunition, far more than we can ever use”; Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth dismissed a depleted-stockpile report as “not true”; and Adm. Brad Cooper, the theater commander, said he was “not concerned at all” and forces are “well-armed and ready for any contingency.” Former national security adviser H.R. McMaster, asked about the $38 billion figure, said “It’s worth it.” House Speaker Mike Johnson declared the Iranian nuclear issue “taken care of” and blamed high gasoline prices on Democratic energy policy. Vice President JD Vance argued that telling the Middle East “You’re on your own” “would mean necessarily a worldwide energy crisis” while Iran kept attacking shipping. The Daily Caller, citing a Brown University Climate Solutions Lab tracker, reported U.S. consumers had spent about $107 billion extra on gasoline and diesel since the war began — more than $750 per household — presenting that tab as the war’s visible cost at the pump.
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is documentary: the CBO and the Pentagon inspector general independently place direct costs in the tens of billions, attribute a sizable share of 2026 inflation to war-driven energy disruptions, and warn of interceptor shortfalls that could take years to close, while the Defense Department’s refusal to share data undercuts assurances of ample stocks. The right’s strongest argument is strategic and counterfactual: Johnson’s claim that the nuclear threat is “taken care of,” McMaster’s judgment that the $38 billion is “worth it,” and Vance’s warning that walking away would produce a worldwide energy crisis so long as Iran fires on shipping, backed by commanders who say they remain ready. The unresolved tension is whether those documented fiscal, inflationary, and stockpile costs are the acceptable price of a completed objective, or evidence of an open-ended campaign whose full bill and readiness risk the administration is not accounting for — a gap the Pentagon’s non-cooperation with the CBO leaves unclosed.

14 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.