US Military Spending on Iran War Exceeds Budgets of Key Public Health Agencies
The United States allocated $11.3 billion during the initial week of its military operations against Iran, a sum significantly exceeding the annual budgets of several public health and scientific agencies that the current administration has aimed to reduce. This disparity highlights critical questions regarding national spending priorities.
Following the joint US-Israel attack on Iran on 28 February, American taxpayer-funded munitions costing $11.3 billion were deployed over six days, resulting in hundreds of casualties. This figure represents only a portion of the total conflict expenses, excluding costs such as troop deployments, and is expected to increase due to the ongoing nature of the conflict.
Even this partial financial overview reveals a stark contrast between military expenditures and funding for agencies responsible for environmental protection, disease control, cancer research, and scientific innovation.
The $11.3 billion spent in the first week alone surpasses the full annual budgets of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the National Cancer Institute (NCI). It also exceeds the total federal scientific research funding allocated through the National Science Foundation (NSF) for the year.
“This just shows a disturbing prioritization of militarism over the health and welfare of the American public,” said Adam Gaffney, a professor at Harvard Medical School who has studied the issue.
“With that money, we could be doubling public health expenditures or doubling environmental protections ensuring that Americans have clean air and water. We could bring healthcare to millions of Americans. Instead, we are putting that money into a war of choice.”
Administration's Budget Cuts to Public Health and Science Agencies
The Trump administration has proposed significant reductions exceeding 50% to the budgets of the EPA and the CDC for the current fiscal year. However, Congress, which holds constitutional authority over public spending and declarations of war, has resisted these cuts, maintaining funding levels for these agencies similar to previous years.
Some Democratic lawmakers have emphasized that the Department of Defense, with an annual budget exceeding $900 billion, possesses sufficient funds to support the conflict in Iran. Representative Adam Schiff stated on NBC,
“The military has all the funding it needs for this conflict. All of these billions, this $11bn within just the first few days, is money that could’ve gone into new hospitals and into new schools, into healthcare for people, for meeting the needs of the American people.”
Efforts to Reduce Agency Spending and Impact on Scientific Research
Last year, the administration initiated a campaign to identify and eliminate what it considered wasteful spending, an effort notably associated with Elon Musk’s so-called Doge. This initiative led to widespread dismissals of agency personnel and scientists, cancellation of thousands of research grants spanning areas such as clean energy development and cancer research, and the termination of programs deemed ideologically inconsistent with the administration’s views.
Lee Zeldin, EPA administrator, declared at the time,
“There will be zero tolerance of any waste and abuse. Irresponsibly shoveling boatloads of cash to far-left, activist groups via various grants will end.”
Scientists have warned that these policies could exacerbate environmental pollution, undermine the United States’ status as a scientific leader, and hinder breakthroughs beneficial to the public and commercial sectors. Some researchers have already left the country, citing concerns about the environment for scientific inquiry.
“The Trump administration’s broadside against the American research enterprise has been deeply disturbing,” said Gaffney.
“It’s not just funding cuts, it’s the politicization of science, the grants no longer funded and the broader attack on science and evidence, such as anti-vaccine theories. This turn towards a dark-ages mentality by this administration is very concerning.”
Shift in Scientific Funding Priorities and Military Research
The administration is refocusing scientific funding towards a limited number of major initiatives or “moonshot” projects, such as achieving breakthroughs in fusion energy, according to Arthur Daemmrich, director of the Arizona State University consortium for science, policy, and outcomes.
President Trump has also signed an executive order directing the US to return to the moon and subsequently to Mars. NASA, the agency responsible for this mission, has been allocated a $24.4 billion budget for the current year, an amount equivalent to approximately two weeks of the war expenditure in Iran.
Daemmrich noted,
“Concerns about the military crowding out other research or the general orientation of US science have been raised repeatedly since the 1920s. For many decades, the US pursued both military-based research and development and civilian, spread across a dozen agencies and with little coordination.”
He added that following World War II, funding increasingly favored military research, with the Pentagon’s budget now routinely ranking among the largest government expenditures alongside social security.
Impact on Researchers and Specific Grant Cuts
The substantial spending on the Iran conflict has drawn attention from researchers experiencing federal funding cuts. For example, last year, Tammie Visintainer, an associate professor of science education at San José State University, had two NSF grants totaling approximately $500,000 rescinded. These grants supported efforts to increase student participation in STEM fields and to study the urban heat island effect to aid cities in adapting to climate change.
“This extremely jarring decision ended four years of work to bolster student participation rates in STEM and to measure the urban heat island effect in cities, which was gathering temperature data to help cities adapt to rising temperatures spurred by the climate crisis,” Visintainer said.
“Budgets are values, and this war is just more evidence that the cuts were never about the money. If you wanted to save money, the military would be the first place to look. This was really about undermining science and anything that doesn’t support their big donors and big oil.”
“It’s incredibly frustrating. I mean, one-hundredth of a Tomahawk missile could pay for all of these agencies. It could’ve funded a lot of research. Instead, this money is used to kill people.”
The White House was contacted for comment.
