Here's a classic Washington debate: what could you do with $12 billion? According to Senator Elizabeth Warren, you could do a lot of things that aren't "an illegal war in Iran."
Warren took to social media to criticize former President Donald Trump's reported $12 billion in Iran-related military spending. Her point was straightforward—that's a pile of money that could have gone to, well, Americans. She laid out a menu of alternatives: restoring the Child Tax Credit for a year, providing housing assistance for a million people, lowering prescription drug costs for millions, or keeping the National Parks running for over three years. For good measure, she added that it could have paid the salaries of more than 100,000 teachers and nurses.
It's the kind of political math that makes for a sharp soundbite—taking a big, abstract number and turning it into a list of very concrete things people care about.
Warren isn't the only one doing this math. Representative Ro Khanna criticized the Trump administration for reportedly seeking an additional $200 billion to continue the conflict. He suggested that money could fund free public college, trade schools, higher teacher salaries, universal child care, and fully funded special needs education instead.
Representative Jason Crow called the spending a "war of choice" and accused Trump of treating taxpayer dollars like "Monopoly money" while Americans grapple with the costs of gas, groceries, and healthcare.
The criticism comes as Senator Bernie Sanders recently slammed a Pentagon request for another $200 billion for the war, noting the U.S. already spends over $1 trillion on the military. "The answer is NO," Sanders wrote. "We need to invest in the American people, not endless war."
Beyond the political rhetoric, economists are warning about the financial fallout. Earlier this month, analysts cautioned that the conflict could push oil prices higher, disrupt global supply chains, and reignite inflation. Economist Peter Schiff argued that a prolonged war could cost the U.S. hundreds of billions—potentially exceeding $1 trillion—and drive inflation higher through government borrowing and money creation.
So, the debate isn't just about how to spend $12 billion. It's about whether to spend hundreds of billions more, and what that money could do if it stayed home. For Warren and her colleagues, the answer seems clear: fund teachers, not tanks.
