On “One Nation with Brian Kilmeade,” Brian posed a key question to me: Would to cover the costs of the battle with Iran?
It should, but that doesnt mean it will. The Democrats have collapsed into a defeatist, demoralized group of elected officials held together (when at all) by their hatred of President Trump.
It is hard to imagine the Congressional Democrats voting to supply the money necessary to actually win a decisive victory over Iran. Since President Obama ordered pallets of cash and precious metals worth $1.7 billion sent to Ayatollah Khamenei in January 2016 as part of the 2015 “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” (“JCPOA”), Democrats have been all about funding our enemy, not our troops.
Four members of the House Democrats and one Democratic Senator, of Pennsylvania, last week to block an attempt to fetter President Trumps powers as Commander-in-Chief pursuant to the “War Powers Act.” That Act of Congress is unconstitutional, but a collision over it was avoided because Republicans control the Congress at least until January 2027.
What cannot be avoided is the need to resupply the mighty American military with the money to replenish its weaponry. Three routes are available to the Congressional Republicans.
First, it would be usual order in the days when Democrats supported the military and made vows to stop Iran by force if necessary, to pass a “supplemental” appropriation. This would simply be put before Congress at the request from Secretary for funding needed that was not anticipated in the 2026 regular appropriation. As the administration earnestly pursued diplomacy with Iran, the cost of was not provided for in last years budget. Democrats would not, however, provide the 60 votes needed in the Senate to push this forward.
Second, the Appropriations Committees of both the Senate and the House â ably led by Senator Susan Collins of Maine and Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma â could simply accelerate the regular appropriations process, but that takes most of the year. It is, however, also an election year. It is hard to imagine Democrats cooperating with Republicans before the November vote as theyd rather criticize everything the president and our troops accomplish than fund it and thereby acknowledge how extraordinary has been their overwhelming assault on the means for the Islamic Republic of Iran to project power.
There is a third path: A second . This is the somewhat obscure budgeting process provided for by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Under its rules, simple majorities of the House and Senate may pass bills having to do with an agreed-upon budget.
“Reconciliation” was used to pass the Working Families Tax Cut of 2025 (otherwise known as the “One, Big Beautiful Bill.”) That was a big lift for the Senate and House Republicans because it included so many working parts as well as near unanimity among on the whole package as the majority was so narrow in the House. But, after months and months of negotiations and careful drafting by every committee involved with the final language coming from the Appropriations Committee, the “Big Beauty” did indeed pass.
The has narrowed further since then and until the battle with Iran began, few if any Republicans could see a second “reconciliation” working out in 2026.
Now, however, a second reconciliation has to be on the table. The militarys need is urgent and so too is the need for the public to understand how vast the differences between the parties when it comes to of the United States.
So it is time for the Budget Committees to agree on a topline that holds steady the 2026 funding levels (or reduces where appropriate and agreeable to both chambers) but to also include within the 2027 budget both the amount of billions a supplemental would provide as well as the regular appropriation for the military and then the massive additional funding President Tr
