Here's a simple question: How much is the war costing? According to Rep. Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California, it's a question the White House doesn't want to answer.

On Saturday, Khanna took to social media and released a video statement accusing the Trump administration of refusing to provide lawmakers with clear figures on what the ongoing military operations are actually costing the United States. "The White House refused to answer how much the war is costing us," Khanna wrote in a post on X.

In the video, he elaborated, saying that when Russell Vaught, the administration's top budget official, came to Congress, he "simply refused to say what the costs are." Khanna's own estimate? "At least $1 billion a day." That's the kind of money, he noted, that could otherwise be funding major education programs.

This lack of transparency, Khanna argues, is happening alongside a push for a dramatically larger defense budget. "The president is asking now for $1.5 trillion for our defense," he said. The math on that is pretty stark: it would move defense spending from 56% of the nation's discretionary budget to almost 70%. For context, the discretionary budget is the part of federal spending that Congress decides on each year, covering everything from the military to scientific research—it's not the mandatory spending on things like Social Security.

And it's not just the defense spending that has Khanna fired up. He tied the budget push to recent fiscal policy, arguing that the benefits are skewed. "The president passed a bill to get $3.7 trillion of tax breaks, largely for the wealthy," he said.

Khanna is far from alone in his criticism. The proposed defense budget has become a lightning rod for top Democrats, who say it prioritizes military expansion over domestic needs at a time when many American families are feeling financial strain.

Sen. Mark Kelly, a Democrat from Arizona and a former Navy captain and astronaut, called a proposed 46% increase in defense spending "irresponsible." He warned it could worsen household costs and hurt the country's fiscal stability.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts argued that pushing military spending above $1 trillion would inevitably force painful cuts elsewhere. "It would force cuts to health care, housing, and education," she said.

The criticism extends beyond the halls of Congress. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said the budget effectively shifts money toward foreign wars while reducing support for domestic programs, "making life more expensive for Americans."

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York called the overall proposal "rotten to the core," while Rep. Adam Schiff of California warned it could threaten funding for critical safety-net programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker also pointed to rising costs and public health concerns as evidence of what he sees as misplaced national priorities.

So, what you have is a fundamental debate about money and transparency. On one side, an administration pushing for a historic increase in defense spending. On the other, a chorus of critics demanding to know the real-time cost of current military engagements and arguing that the nation's financial focus is in the wrong place. And at the center of it all is a congressman saying the most basic question—"What's the bill?"—is going unanswered.