The Pentagon’s reported intention to ask Congress for $200 billion for an emergency supplemental to fund the U.S. military amid war in Iran is being met with prompt rejection from a number of congressional Democrats, raising questions about whether the funding will pass through normal procedures or if supporters will have to resort to partisan budget reconciliation measures.

“As far as $200 billion, I think that number could move, obviously. It takes money to kill bad guys,” Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said of the reported proposal on Thursday. “We’re going back to Congress and our folks there to ensure that we’re properly funded for what’s been done, for what we may have to do in the future, ensure that our ammunition is — everything’s refilled, and not just refilled, but above and beyond.”

The Pentagon request will still need to be approved by the White House before being submitted to Congress.

Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) said that the size of the request suggests that the administration is planning for a much larger war than initially envisioned.

“At the height of combat the Iraq War cost around $140 Billion per year. If the Pentagon is asking for $200 billion they are asking for a long war. The answer is a simple no,” Gallego said on X.

The request seems likely, however, to include funding to expand U.S. defense production beyond the specific costs of the current Iran war. President Donald Trump has requested $1.5 trillion for the Pentagon’s overall budget in 2027, expanding the military budget by more than one-third.

“We’re asking for a lot of reasons beyond even what we’re talking about in Iran. This is a very volatile world,” Trump said Thursday.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) told reporters that a $200 billion request for a war without congressional authorization and for which the costs have not been clearly articulated would be a “nonstarter.” He also raised concerns — as have other Democrats — that any authorization of funding for the war could be legally considered an authorization for use of military force.

“​​Trump is asking Congress for $200 billion more for his war in Iran, but he cut your health care, drove costs up, and slashed Medicaid,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) said. “He wants money for his war first while Americans are paying for it.”

At the same time, some Republicans have expressed that they would likely support the request, arguing that it is necessary to provide funding in time of war if it makes sense, though some haven’t treated the $200 billion figure as final.

“We’ve been in a shooting war … we need to see it through and make sure our men and women have what they need,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), arguably the leading advocate for the war on Capitol Hill. “So I’d hate to be the senator that denied the request if it made sense.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) predicted that the request would be carefully considered and matched to U.S. needs.

“It will be detailed and specified. I’m sure it’s not a random number, so we’ll look at that,” Johnson said. “But obviously, it’s a dangerous time in the world, and we have to adequately fund defense, and we have a commitment to do that.”

Meanwhile, House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) is withholding comment until the funding request is finalized and submitted. 

Other Republicans have expressed more skepticism, with some calling for a clear plan from the White House before any decision is made. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) said she is a “no” in an interview with CNN, arguing instead that funds should be allocated domestically. 

“I have already told [House] leadership: I am a ‘no’ on any war supplemental. I am so tired of spending money over there [in the Middle East],” Boebert said. “I have folks in Colorado who can’t afford to live. We need America First policies right now.” 

Since the war started, some on Capitol Hill have discussed potentially attaching funding for the war to a reconciliation package, which could pass the Senate by a party-line vote rather than needing to receive a filibuster-proof 60 vote majority. 

But Sen. Susan Collins (R-AK), the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, rejected that idea on Thursday.

“That would not be my preference,” Collins said. “I understand the need to get this through, but it seems to me that it would be best to go through the appropriations process.”

It is also not clear, with narrow margins in the House and a small number of Republicans opposed to the war, that any reconciliation package — particularly one including funding for the conflict — could pass the lower chamber, either.