Democrats Criticize Military Spending Over Health Care, Housing

Lawmakers slam billions for 'illegal & unconstitutional' Iran war as funds could have supported families

Published on Mar. 8, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Several Democratic lawmakers have criticized federal spending priorities, arguing that billions directed toward military action related to Iran should instead support health care, housing and lower costs for families. Lawmakers like Bernie Sanders, Adam Schiff, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Hakeem Jeffries have spoken out against the high costs of the potential Iran war, which analysts estimate could have exceeded $1 trillion, and called for the funds to be used for domestic priorities instead.

Why it matters

The debate over military spending versus domestic priorities highlights an ongoing tension in U.S. politics, as lawmakers grapple with how to allocate limited resources. Critics argue that the costs of military interventions divert funds from pressing social needs, while proponents contend that a strong military is essential for national security. This issue is likely to remain a point of contention as the 2024 election approaches.

The details

Lawmakers criticized the Trump administration for prioritizing military spending over domestic programs. Sen. Bernie Sanders slammed the billions directed toward an "illegal & unconstitutional war" with Iran, arguing the funds should instead support health care, affordable housing and education. Rep. Adam Schiff and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand echoed this sentiment, accusing the administration of finding money for "bombs and tax cuts for billionaires" but not for families' basic needs. House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries and Sen. Mazie Hirono also criticized the administration's defense-focused spending. Analysts estimated the potential Iran war could have cost over $1 trillion, warning it could have disrupted the economy and reversed progress on inflation.

  • Last week, estimates showed the U.S. military campaign against Iran, Operation Epic Fury, could have cost taxpayers between $40 billion and $210 billion.
  • Last month, reports found the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) overstated its claimed $55 billion in federal spending cuts, with actual savings closer to $2.6 billion.

The players

Bernie Sanders

A U.S. Senator from Vermont and a prominent progressive voice in the Democratic Party.

Adam Schiff

A U.S. Representative from California and the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Kirsten Gillibrand

A U.S. Senator from New York and a member of the Democratic Party.

Hakeem Jeffries

A U.S. Representative from New York and the current House Democratic leader.

Mazie Hirono

A U.S. Senator from Hawaii and a member of the Democratic Party.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“We're told there's not enough money for health care, affordable housing or education. But somehow there are billions for an illegal & unconstitutional war.”

— Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senator (X)

“He found billions for bombs and tax cuts for billionaires. But he can't find money for your family's groceries or your kids' doctor.”

— Kirsten Gillibrand, U.S. Senator (N/A)

“Taxpayer dollars should be used to lower the high cost of living... Republicans are instead spending billions to drop bombs.”

— Hakeem Jeffries, House Democratic Leader (N/A)

The takeaway

The debate over military spending versus domestic priorities highlights an ongoing tension in U.S. politics, as lawmakers grapple with how to allocate limited resources. Critics argue that the costs of military interventions divert funds from pressing social needs, while proponents contend that a strong military is essential for national security. This issue is likely to remain a point of contention as the 2024 election approaches.