SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
office of management and budget
Congress Urged to Reject Trump's $88 Billion Request for Iran War That ‘Everyone Hates’
"This is a bitter Pentagon potion that no one should swallow."
Jun 25, 2026
The Trump administration is facing pushback after it formally asked the US Congress to approve $88 billion in supplemental funding that will primarily be used to pay for President Donald Trump's illegal war of choice with Iran.
In a letter sent to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought said that most of the requested funding "will address urgent needs related to Operation Epic Fury (OEF), in addition to other critical needs such as responding to the Ebola outbreak in Central Africa and supporting hardworking American farmers."
Many congressional Democrats, however, were not eager to go along with the administration's $88 billion request.
"Trump and [Defense Secretary Pete] Hegseth are now asking for $88 BILLION more for their illegal war in Iran," wrote Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) in a Thursday social media post. "Just as I predicted, they are pairing this money with other priorities to buy votes for this war. The American people shouldn't backfill this blunder. Not another dime!"
Van Hollen was joined in his opposition to further war funding by his colleague Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Senate Democrats' top appropriator, who said she would not "rubber-(stamp tens of billions more for this disastrous war of choice."
Murray also highlighted the opportunity cost of the president's war.
"This president is telling the American people there’s no money for healthcare, housing, or childcare," the Washington Democrat said, "but there should be endless taxpayer dollars to fund wars they don’t support."
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, similarly noted that "the tens of billions in military spending requested by the Trump administration could be used to protect Americans’ healthcare, feed hungry children, and help working families afford everyday life."
Elected officials aren't the only ones signaling opposition to the Trump administration's request.
Steve Ellis, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, noted that Trump is asking Congress for more money even though he completely bypassed the legislature when launching the war in late February.
"About six weeks ago, the Pentagon put the cost of the Iran War at $29 billion," Ellis said. "Now they want more than twice that? Either the administration wasn’t being honest about the costs then, or they aren’t being honest about the costs now."
Ellis also pointed out that the US Department of Defense is still sitting on roughly $100 billion in unobligated funds it could tap to replenish the munitions used in the illegal war.
"The need to address certain munitions shortfalls resulting from the war is real, but the Pentagon already has plenty of funds to do so," he explained, "and any future investments beyond that should happen through the regular budget process, not through a partisan reconciliation bill or a slapdash supplemental."
Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, said it appeared Trump was making this supplemental funding request because he knew Congress would not approve the unprecedented $1.5 trillion defense budget he proposed.
"Hegseth and Trump are circling back to their first deeply unpopular option for increasing the Pentagon budget—a supplemental funding bill for an illegal war on Iran that nobody asked for and everyone hates," said Weissman. "This effort, like the others, will fail."
Weissman warned members of Congress against supporting any additional funding requested by the administration, which he said Trump and Hegseth would likely take as approval for "launching more illegal and unconstitutional wars and military actions."
"And no so-called sweetener should make any difference whatsoever," he emphasized. "This is a bitter Pentagon potion that no one should swallow."
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, urged Democrats to uniformly reject Trump's request.
"No Democratic lawmaker should bow to Trump’s demand that working Americans pay even more for his disastrous war on Iran," Williams said. "Funds to replenish stockpiles can come from elsewhere in the already bloated, record-high Pentagon budget—or tax the oil and arms investors who made a killing."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Politics Should Never Decide Who Gets Care
The Office of Management and Budget’s proposed rule putting political appointees in charge of healthcare-funding decisions threatens the patients we serve.
Jun 20, 2026
As a nurse educator and a psychiatric-mental health nurse, we have built our careers on evidence-based practice, ethics, and compassion when caring for patients. Politics never entered the picture. Our responsibility has always been to provide care guided by science, professional standards, and the individual needs of our patients, not political ideology or partisan priorities. That is why the Office of Management and Budget’s proposed rule, Docket OMB-2026-0034, which would hand healthcare funding decisions to political appointees, stops us cold.
At first glance, this proposal may sound administrative or technical. In reality, it would fundamentally alter how federally funded healthcare, nursing education, behavioral health programs, and scientific research are approved, monitored, and terminated. Under rule §200.340, any grant can be ended at any point if it no longer aligns with the priorities of the administration. That is not oversight. It is political control.
For nurses, the consequences would not be abstract. They would be immediate, personal, and dangerous for the patients we care for.
Psychiatric nursing already operates within a fragile system. Across the United States, communities face severe shortages of mental health professionals; long wait times for psychiatric care; rising suicide rates; surging substance use disorders; and escalating mental health crises among children, veterans, and older adults. Nurses are often the last line of support for patients who have nowhere else to go.
Healthcare funding decisions should be based on patient outcomes, workforce needs, public health evidence, and community impact, not whether a program aligns with the political priorities of whichever party holds power.
Every day, we talk with parents who are doing everything they can to find behavioral care for their children, but too often they feel frustrated and alone. Parents often share that they spend months calling providers, sitting on waitlists, and navigating insurance paperwork, all while trying to support their child through daily challenges at school and at home.
Hospitals are faced with the daunting task of finding inpatient services for patients in crisis. Sometimes the search for placement takes hours or even days, resulting in patients, many of them young people and the elderly, sitting in over-crowded emergency departments, waiting for care that may never come.
Many of the programs that train psychiatric nurses, support community mental health services, fund suicide prevention initiatives, and expand rural behavioral healthcare depend on federal grants and cooperative agreements. Under §200.205, the proposed OMB rule places a single political appointee in control over those funding decisions, with the power to override independent scientific and professional review.
This should alarm every American, regardless of political affiliation.
Healthcare funding decisions should be based on patient outcomes, workforce needs, public health evidence, and community impact, not whether a program aligns with the political priorities of whichever party holds power. Mental healthcare especially requires stability, continuity, and trust. When funding becomes politicized, patients inevitably suffer.
We are equally concerned about the chilling effect this rule would have on nursing schools and healthcare education programs. Federal support helps nursing programs prepare students to work in underserved communities, conduct behavioral health research, develop telepsychiatry services, and address disparities in care. Under §200.206 a political appointee could deny funding to any institution deemed “un-American,” a standard so vague it could be applied to programs addressing mental health disparities, harm reduction, or any work that falls outside current political favor.
We encourage nurses, educators, researchers, and the general public to join us and submit public comments on Docket OMB-2026-0034 before July 13, 2026, urging federal officials to reject these policies.
The proposed rule threatens the integrity of evidence-based practice itself. Nursing education is built on teaching students how to evaluate research critically, apply best practices, and advocate for patient-centered care. We cannot tell future nurses to “follow the science” while simultaneously allowing political officials to override scientific peer review and the expertise of those closest to patients.
We know what happens when systems become unstable. We witnessed it during the pandemic. Burnout rises. Staffing worsens. Experienced clinicians leave. Patients wait longer for care. Rural communities lose services first. One of us lived through the 2025 Southern California wildfires. Vulnerable populations suffer most. The mental health system was already stretched thin before the flames arrived.
This OMB proposal risks accelerating those exact outcomes.
Public trust in healthcare depends on the belief that medical and scientific decisions are guided by expertise rather than ideology. Once political influence is written into the structure of healthcare funding, that trust may never be fully restored. Mental health patients already fight stigma, long waits, and shrinking access to care. They should never have to wonder whether a political appointee is shaping the care available to them.
Nurses are educated to protect human dignity, promote health equity, and uphold evidence-based care. Those values do not change depending on which party controls Washington. They are foundational to the nursing profession and guide how nurses advocate for patients, families, and communities every single day.
The OMB proposal is framed as a restructuring of federal financial assistance, but for healthcare professionals on the ground, it represents something much larger: a deliberate shift away from independent expertise and toward political control over healthcare priorities. That does not strengthen nursing, mental healthcare, or public health. It dismantles all three.
We encourage nurses, educators, researchers, and the general public to join us and submit public comments on Docket OMB-2026-0034 before July 13, 2026, urging federal officials to reject these policies. If we allow political ideology to dictate which healthcare programs survive, which research is funded, and which communities receive support, we risk abandoning the very people the healthcare system exists to protect.
Nurses stand at the bedside of patients during their most vulnerable moments, regardless of politics, income, geography, or background. Federal healthcare policy should reflect a similar commitment. The future of mental healthcare, nursing education, and public trust in science depends on preserving independent, evidence-based decision-making free from political interference. Our patients deserve nothing less.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Another Unauthorized Trump Fund': Democrats Fume Over $300 Million in Taxpayer Money for Ballroom
"While Republicans slash healthcare and other programs Americans depend on, President Trump is reportedly using hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars for a White House ballroom," said US Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi.
Jun 18, 2026
Democratic lawmakers are reacting with disgust amid new reporting on how the White House has been using sneaky budget maneuvering to get US taxpayers to fund President Donald Trump's luxury ballroom that was never approved by Congress.
According to a Thursday report in The Washington Post, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) mysteriously shifted $352 million within the US Secret Service budget that had been earmarked for training and recruitment, but that will now be spent on White House security measures.
An insider familiar with the process told the Post that the redirected funds were related to the construction of the ballroom.
A White House spokesperson did not deny that the money was going toward the ballroom project, while insisting that "the East Wing Modernization Project is inextricably tied to the security of the president, the White House grounds, and the certain security infrastructure assets."
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, told the Post he was concerned that money "intended to pay Secret Service agents and ensure they have the technology and resources they need to keep individuals under their protection safe" is now being spent on the president's "vanity project."
In a Wednesday interview with NOTUS, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said it appears Trump "was just flat out lying when he said the taxpayers will not pay a dime for his ballroom," adding that it appears "he is now trying to find ways to funnel public money into it."
In a Thursday social media post, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) contrasted Trump's willingness to use taxpayer cash for his ballroom with cuts he and the GOP made to vital healthcare and food assistance programs.
"While Republicans slash healthcare and other programs Americans depend on," Krishnamoorthi wrote, "President Trump is reportedly using hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars for a White House ballroom he claimed would be privately funded."
Rep. Jonathan Jackson (D-Ill.) similarly argued that while the GOP's 2025 budget law "kicked 4.3 million people off SNAP and 5 million people off [Affordable Care Act] health insurance coverage," the administration is now "dishonestly spending millions of dollars of YOUR money to fund a ballroom instead of helping struggling Americans put food on the table and receive essential medical care."
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) linked the ballroom money to other Trump schemes to enrich himself through the presidency, including his acceptance of a luxury jet from the government of Qatar and his $1.8 billion slush fund for political allies.
"Now we learn that Trump’s bad architecture obsession is costing us all $600 million," Raskin wrote, in reference to earlier reporting on how the ballroom project has ballooned in costs from the White House's early estimates. "Turn your illegal Qatari jet over to the people and we’ll sell it for $400 million and we’ll take the rest out of other illegal emoluments and slush funds, including the $1.776 billion fund for insurrectionists, and the Board of Peace, another unauthorized Trump fund bankrolled by money misallocated from the State Department."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular