ConflictClarifier

מעקב משבר איראן-המפרץ 2026
CC
Events Archive
strikeMar 31, 2026

Trump Links Biden's Ukraine Aid to Pentagon's Iran War Funding Request - FactCheck.org

Summary

With the Pentagon potentially seeking a $200 billion supplemental package to fund the ongoing war with Iran, President Donald Trump defended that figure in part by saying U.S. ammunition “was taken down by giving so much to Ukraine.” He then exaggerated the amount of aid to Ukraine and falsely said that former President Joe Biden “didn’t rebuild anything” in the defense stockpile. Trump has a point that the military assistance provided to Ukraine reduced the U.S. reserve of weapons. But that aid largely has not affected the military operations in Iran, defense experts told us. Furthermore, Biden signed multiple spending bills passed by Congress that included funding to replace the older weapons that the U.S. gave to Ukraine with new items. Experts also told us that Biden’s administration put money into increasing the production of munitions for the military. “Of course, the Biden administration built a lot in terms of military equipment,” Mark F. Cancian, senior adviser for the defense and security department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told us in an email. “Whether it did enough is another question.” The subject of the $200 billion request came up during a March 19 meeting in the Oval Office when a reporter asked Trump why the funding would be necessary if, as Trump had said, the war with Iran would “pretty soon” be over. “Well, we’re asking for a lot of reasons beyond even what we’re talking about in Iran,” the president responded. He went on to add: “We want to have vast amounts of ammunition, which we have right now. We have a lot of ammunition, but it was taken down by giving so much to Ukraine. They gave so much. You know, Biden gave $350 billion worth of cash and military equipment to Ukraine, and he didn’t rebuild anything.” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also brought up Biden when asked about the potential $200 billion supplemental in a press conference that same day. “As far as $200 billion, I think that number could move,” Hegseth said. “It takes money to kill bad guys. So, we’re going back to Congress and folks there to ensure that we’re properly funded for what’s been done, for what we may have to do in the future, ensure that our ammunition is – everything’s refilled and not just refilled, but above and beyond.” He went on to say: “And I think, you know, we’re also still dealing with the environment that Joe Biden created, which was – which was depleting those stock holds and not sending them to our own military, but to Ukraine – which is when, every time we reach back and look at any sort of a challenge we have, it goes back to well, send it to Ukraine.” But as we’ve written, the U.S. did not give “$350 billion worth of cash and military equipment to Ukraine.” Trump has made that false claim multiple times. During the Biden administration, nearly $183 billion – not including a $20 billion loan – was made available for aid to Ukraine, after Russia invaded in February 2022, according to a report released in February 2025 by a special inspector general overseeing U.S. support for Ukraine. The vast majority of that money was authorized by Congress in a series of bipartisan appropriations bills. A portion of the funding was dedicated to military assistance rather than humanitarian or other financial aid. Biden’s Defense Department said in a January 2025 fact sheet that it committed more than $66.5 billion in security assistance to Ukraine, including approximately $65.9 billion following the invasion by Russia in early 2022. Part of that military aid included the transfer of a variety of missiles, artillery, tanks and other armaments from the Defense Department. Defense experts told us that aid has temporarily reduced the U.S. reserve of available weapons. “It is true that U.S. stockpiles are badly depleted by aid to Ukraine,” Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, a think tank that advocates a “restrained foreign policy,” told us in an email. “This long-term problem will take time to address. It is not something that has been resolved and is ongoing across many types of munitions and air defense.” However, she said it would be “misleading” to suggest that military aid to Ukraine is responsible for most of the “current munitions concerns” in Iran because of the type of weapons that have been used in the war to date. “With the exception of Patriot interceptors, most [of] the munitions in use in the Middle East were not given to Ukraine at any point,” Kavanagh said, referring to the PATRIOT air defense systems that can shoot down incoming ballistic missiles. For example, the Washington Post reported, citing anonymous sources, that the U.S. used more than 850 Tomahawk cruise missiles against Iran in a month, raising concerns among some Pentagon officials about the limited supply. But the U.S. has not given Tomahawks to Ukraine, even though Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has requested them. Cancian, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, also told us in an email that besides “Patriot batteries and missiles,” which Ukraine has used “extensively” against Russia, the munitions the U.S. gave to Ukraine “were almost entirely for ground forces, which is not an issue in the current war.” So far, U.S. ground troops have not been ordered into combat. The U.S. and Israel have conducted joint airstrikes since launching the attack on Iran on Feb. 28. But thousands of American soldiers were recently deployed to the Middle East in case Trump does authorize ground operations. “So, it is fair to link Ukraine aid to shortages in U.S. Patriot missile stockpiles, but not limited magazine depth more broadly,” Kavanagh said. “That larger problem stems from years of low production and constraints on the U.S. defense industrial base.” Cancian said that CSIS has estimated that the inventory of Patriot missiles will last through the war with Iran, but “will be well below what war planners want for a possible conflict in the western Pacific.” Exact figures are not available because inventory totals are classified. Meanwhile, both defense experts told us that Trump was wrong to claim that Biden did nothing as president to try to “rebuild” the stockpile. “The Biden administration invested heavily in the U.S. defense industrial base and began a massive ramp-up in the production of many types of munitions that Trump continues,” Kavanagh said. “Much of the funding in the defense supplemental appropriations went to this purpose and the Pentagon made a real effort to expand munitions production and stockpiles. Some would say that Biden did not do enough or acted too slowly, but these are judgment calls. It is not accurate to say he built nothing.” Cancian said that Biden “began the process of expanding munitions production by investing money in facilities and signing multiyear contracts.” He also noted that Congress, under Biden, appropriated money to replace all the military equipment that the U.S. sent to Ukraine. Biden made that point himself in an October 2023 address to the American public. “Let me be clear about something,” the former president said. “We send Ukraine equipment sitting in our stockpiles. And when we use the money allocated by Congress, we use it to replenish our own stores, our own stockpiles, with new equipment. Equipment that defends America and is made in America.” The issue, Cancian said, is that “it will take years before all of the replacement equipment arrives.” He said, “That gap constitutes risk if other conflicts break out.” On Jan. 20, 2025, the day that Biden left office, the State Department said that Presidential Drawdown Authority had been used 55 times since August 2021 to provide military assistance to Ukraine “totaling approximately $31.7 billion from DoD stockpiles.” The February 2025 report from the Ukraine oversight inspector general said that Congress appropriated $45.8 billion to replace the materials the Defense Department donated to Ukraine. Notably, when we asked about the $200 billion Pentagon request and Trump’s and Hegseth’s claims about Biden draining the U.S. stockpile, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the U.S. has all that it needs for operations in Iran. “The US military has more than enough munitions, ammo, and weapons stockpiles to achieve the goals of Operation Epic Fury laid out by President Trump — and beyond,” she said in an emailed statement. “Nevertheless,” she went on, “President Trump has always been intensely focused on strengthen[ing] our Armed Forces and he will continue to call on defense contractors to more speedily build American-made weapons, which are the best in the world.” Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, P.O. Box 58100, Philadelphia, PA 19102.

Actors involved

USIranIsrael

Sources

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranUN
1 source

The US and its allies Britain, France and Germany are pushing other countries on the UN nuclear watchdog's board to pass a resolution next week reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for the first time in 20 years, diplomats said on Friday. If passed, the resolution would follow up on one adopted on June 12 of last year declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for not fully cooperating with an investigation into uranium traces found at undeclared sites.

The US launched an air war against Tehran on February 28 in which, together with Israel, it destroyed or badly damaged Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities. Iran has not let International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors return to the bombed sites since then or verify what remains of its stocks of enriched uranium, some of which was enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.

Resolution would be culmination of standoff over IAEA's access to nuclear sites A resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation board reporting Iran to the Security Council would also be the culmination of a standoff over IAEA access to those sites, since the board has passed two resolutions in the past year demanding Iran declare its enriched uranium stocks and grant the IAEA full access to verify them.

A draft text for the resolution has yet to be formally submitted to the board and negotiations between countries over the exact wording are ongoing, diplomats said. A draft is usually formally submitted early in the week of a board meeting. As a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology, including enrichment, for peaceful purposes.

Iran says it would never produce nuclear weapons. It is, however, the only country to enrich to 60% without making a bomb. The amount it has enriched to that level is "a matter of serious concern" to the IAEA. The IAEA believes well over 200 kg of that highly enriched uranium has survived the bombardments and is held in a tunnel complex at Isfahan and at the Natanz facility.

Location: Jerusalem
strikeUnverifiedUSIranChina
1 source

The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on the Turkish bank Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi Anonim Sirketi, alleging it facilitated the transfer of Iranian oil revenues into cash and gold. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated these measures are part of "Operation Economic Outcast," an initiative launched following more than six months of conflict to pressure Iran.

Location: Iran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranEURussiaChinaUkraineHamas
1 source

Rabobank reported that geopolitical developments, including Russian statements regarding potential peace talks in Ukraine and US-Iran hostilities, continue to dominate market sentiment, though analysts noted these claims remain unverified. The bank also cited unconfirmed reports that South Korea may deploy forces to the Strait of Hormuz and that Israel has stated regime change in Tehran is a primary objective, while noting that Ukrainian media reports of an impending northern Russian offensive lack independent verification.

Location: Tehran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranRussiaUkraine
1 source

The White House is now apparently using Russian tactics to convince the American public that the war in Iran is not, in fact, a war. When asked by reporters at the White House on Thursday whether the most intense sustained air campaign by American forces since the invasion of Iraq would be over by the midterms, Vice President JD Vance replied: “I wouldn’t call it a war.

” Vladimir Putin said much the same thing when he invaded Ukraine. Russia was not fighting a war either, the Kremlin insisted; it was merely conducting a “special military operation.” If that comparison strikes you as shocking, consider the contours of the two conflicts.

A vastly more powerful military launched a punishing offensive against a smaller, less well-equipped adversary, inflicted enormous damage without achieving a decisive resolution, and then found itself drawn into a longer, grinding conflict with no clear way out.

The motivations behind the wars may be different, and they’re playing out in different theaters, but the pattern is eerily similar. Now, so too is the attempt by those in power to control how the public understands, and even what it is allowed to call, the obvious war unfolding in front of them.

If This Isn’t a War, What Is? Let us take a moment to assess what exactly has happened since February 28, when the U.S. launched Operation Epic Fury. The opening U.S.-Israeli attack killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, along with the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the defense minister and various other senior officials.

According to the U.S. military’s own accounting, the first 38 days of major combat operations involved more than 10,200 sorties and 13,500 strikes. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) says those attacks damaged or destroyed more than 85 percent of Iran’s ballistic missile, drone and naval defense industrial base, while knocking out 82 percent of its air-defense missile systems.

The U.S. sent carrier strike groups and warships into the region, later imposing a military blockade on Iranian ports. Meanwhile, American and allied air defenses intercepted more than 6,000 Iranian attack drones and 1,500 ballistic missiles fired at U.

S. forces, Israel and American partners across the Middle East. More than 50,000 U.S. service members remain deployed across the region. The fighting has killed 18 U.S. service members and at least 8,000 people across Iran, Lebanon, Israel and the Gulf states.

More than 750 U.S. service members have been wounded. Last month, during a lull in the fighting, the U.S. Treasury unveiled a sanctions package likened to an “economic D-day” that is designed to make Iran an “economic outcast” and cut the adversary off from all available forms of economic support.

In the announcement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent openly declared that Iran had been “at war against America” for 47 years. This week, the shooting resumed; the U.S. hit targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran blasted missiles at targets in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Iraq.

All this from an administration that almost exactly a year ago launched a rapid rebrand of the Defense Department into the “Department of War”. No boots on the ground, though, so it’s not a war, right? Tell It Kind of Like It Is Even the very best snake-oil salesman would have a hard time convincing people that the war in Iran isn’t a war.

So why is JD Vance even trying? Well, if there’s one thing politicians understand better than anyone, it’s the importance of language and rhetoric. Words have immense power; a well-written speech can unite millions of people, and a catchy slogan like Make America Great Again can come to represent an entire political philosophy.

But war is a pesky word. For one, it implies there will eventually be a winner and a loser. It also brings with it certain expectations—and some very difficult questions. What is the objective? How many people will die? When will it end? And, perhaps most dangerously of all: was it worth it?

Those are not questions the White House wants Americans to be asking. Trump built a substantial part of his political identity around ending, rather than beginning, America’s “endless wars.” When Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding in June, the White House presented it as proof that Trump’s America First approach could deliver peace without another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict.

Then the hostilities started again. Earlier this week, Trump shared a Truth Social graphic declaring that “Hormuz Oil Volumes are BACK!”, saying 18 million barrels a day were once again leaving the Strait, compared with 20 million before the war. No independent commodity tracking company or energy analyst appeared to verify Trump’s claims.

But most Americans won’t be checking tanker-tracking dashboards. What they’ll care about is the cold, hard fact that diesel hit a new record price this morning, soaring to an average of $5.85 a gallon for the first time ever. Gasoline is $4.15 a gallon on average, compared with $3.

20 at this time last year, according to AAA. The numbers on the sign at the gas station and the price on the grocery receipt aren’t affected by Trump’s tall tales, but they’ll surely affect how Americans vote at the midterms. When viewed in this light, Vance’s attempt to discourage reporters from “call[ing] it a war” begins to make sense.

A war is something that we want to end. It tends to result in a winner and a loser. And its worth is up for debate at all times. A different kind of engagement that doesn’t quite meet the threshold of war—say, a special military operation—is not exposed to the same kind of scrutiny.

Vance effectively made that case himself. “When you ask, ‘When will this end?’ You’re asking me a question like, ‘When will the Iranians stop shooting at ships?’” he said. By that logic, there is no American war—only recurring Iranian provocations that require American military responses.

That’s exactly the logic applied by Putin to Ukraine and supposed expansion of NATO. Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube U.S. lawmakers have repeatedly invoked the War Powers Resolution to challenge Trump’s authority to keep fighting Iran without specific congressional authorization.

The law generally gives a president 60 days after U.S. forces enter “hostilities” to secure congressional approval or bring those hostilities to an end. That makes the pauses in fighting hugely important. When the original 60-day deadline arrived in May, Trump told Congress that the temporary ceasefire reached in April meant the hostilities that began on February 28 had ended.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued that the War Powers clock could “pause, or stop” when the shooting did. That position is disputed by legal experts, but its political utility is obvious. If every new outbreak of fighting can be treated as a separate skirmish, rather than part of one continuous war, the administration can argue that a fresh 60-day clock starts each time.

Vance’s insistence that there is no continuing “war” fits neatly for an administration that has already tried to divide six months of conflict into separate periods of hostilities, interrupted by ceasefires and pauses. This brings us back to Moscow.

The Kremlin’s own linguistic trick was also about making one sprawling war sound smaller, more limited and more manageable than it really was. From the very beginning of the invasion, Putin described the war as a special military operation. Only after two years of grinding warfare did Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov openly declare Russia to be in a “state of war”—and even then, he said the transformation had occurred because the “collective West” had joined the fight against Russia.

Vance is playing a similar game, but in reverse. Only now—with soaring fuel prices, mounting casualties, concerns over the military’s munitions stockpiles, and midterm elections on the horizon—is the conflict no longer a war. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle, though, and the American people aren’t stupid.

Vance and the White House may discover in November that voters are perfectly capable of recognizing a war, even when the vice president doesn’t want to call it one.

Location: Iran