The Pentagon has asked the White House to approve a $200 billion request to Congress to fund the Iran war, prompting concern from lawmakers, including some Republicans.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed the forthcoming supplemental request during a press conference Thursday, but stressed the figure “could move.”

“It takes money to kill bad guys,” he told reporters. “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.”

There is already criticism over the cost of the Iran war, which is currently in its 21st day with no clear end in sight.

Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, said Sunday that $12 billion had been spent on the conflict. 

U.S. consumers are already starting to feel the implications. 

Due to Iran effectively blocking the flow of oil and gas that transits the Strait of Hormuz, energy prices have surged. Since the U.S. and Israel launched strikes against Iran on Feb. 28, American families are paying nearly 80 cents more per gallon for gas every time they fill up. Some airlines have raised the prices on certain flights in an effort to combat rising fuel costs. 

Analysis conducted by TIME, based on publicly available data, found that the $12 billion already spent on the war could have been spent on health care for 1.3 billion Americans.

Amid growing concerns over the far-reaching economic hits, this week the U.S. national debt soared past the $39 trillion mark—and all during a cost-of-living crisis.

The financial burden of the war, and the news of the forthcoming supplemental request, has prompted stern criticism from some.

Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, an adversary of President Donald Trump, condemned the figure. “This is only the beginning. More money will be wasted. More lives will be lost,” he said. 

Newsom listed a series of alternative endeavours he claims a $200 billion cheque could fund. It could “expand the ACA tax credit for seven years” or “provide up to two million people the SNAP benefits they need,” he estimated.

While the request has yet to be sent to Congress, many lawmakers are seemingly opposed to the prospect of approving such a large sum. An added complexity lies in the fact that the Trump Administration did not seek approval from Congress before launching the initial strikes on Feb. 28.

As the war rages on, here’s a look at the Republican and Democratic lawmakers that have voiced concern over the forthcoming supplemental request.

Republicans

Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado

Rep. Lauren Boebert robustly confirmed that she would not vote in favor of any war supplementals. 

“I’ve already told leadership, I am a ‘no’ on any war supplementals. I am so tired of spending money elsewhere. I am tired of the industrial war complex getting all of our hard-earned tax dollars,” she told reporters.

“I have folks in Colorado who can’t afford to live. We need America first policies right now,” Boebert said. “There’s a lot of hardlines that I have right now. We [Republicans] have to get our act together if we want to keep this majority. The path that we’re going [down] doesn’t look very promising.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska

Sen. Lisa Murkowski insisted that the Trump Administration would not only need to present the requested amount to Congress, but also the rationale behind it. 

Murkowski said her constituents in Alaska have been asking her questions about how long the war is going to last and how much it will cost. She admitted: “The answer on most of this is, I don’t know… I want to know some of the answers to the questions Alaskans are asking me. I think we need to have open hearings.”

Murkowski also raised concerns about how widely–and rapidly—the war has escalated.

“We are three weeks into a war that we have seen escalate beyond military targets. The United States is not hitting the non-military targets, but what we are seeing happen as a consequence of this, which should have been easily predicted…  the non-military assets being hit, the oil assets that are being hit, the impact on the Strait of Hormuz. The world is feeling the impact of this war,” she argued.

Murkowski insisted that Congress must be properly briefed moving forward and denounced the fact that she’s been getting updates on the war through information distributed via the press instead of the Administration.

“That’s not how you inform Congress,” she told reporters.

Rep. Chip Roy of Texas

Rep. Chip Roy defended Trump’s position on the war, but said he would need to know exactly how any supplemental funds would be distributed.

“I like to be consistent. I was consistent about Ukraine. I’m going to be consistent on Iran,” he told Fox News. “I want to make sure I know the game plan. We want to know what the result is going to be.”

Roy emphasized that he trusts the President and Hegseth to defend national interests, but insisted on knowing more about the financial specifics, and whether it might involve Americans in a long-standing conflict.

“The American people don’t want to be involved in a long-term war. $200 billion is a lot of money. He needs to come and tell us, is this to replace munitions? Rebuild our stockpile? Or are we talking about a long-term engagement?” he said. “We need to know before we can write a blank cheque.” 

Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky

Rep. Thomas Massie, who has broken ranks with Trump over a number of high-profile issues, was equally concerned over what a $200 billion supplement would entail and what it could lead to.

“It begs the question, how long do they plan to be there? What are the goals? Is this the first $200 billion? Does this turn into a trillion?” he told CNN. 

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries is already entangled in a long stand-off with his Republican colleagues over funding for the Department of Homeland Security, resulting in an ongoing partial government shutdown.

The House Minority Leader on Thursday was asked if Democrats opposing the $200 billion request could potentially leave U.S. troops “in the lurch.”

“It’s our understanding right now that there are no troops on the ground. And, in fact, the American people would reject Trump, Hegseth, and Republicans putting our troops on the ground in harm’s way in the Middle East,” he said, accusing Trump of going against his campaign promise and getting the U.S. involved in a “reckless war.”

“It’s our responsibility right now to end this reckless war of choice, to end the fact that billions of dollars have already been spent,” he continued, claiming the same Republicans backing the war have “ripped Medicaid away from millions of people.”

Jeffries argued that Republicans are “way off base” when it comes to their priorities and said the billions should be spent on making life “better” for everyday Americans—by bringing down grocery bills and the price of gasoline—rather than being used to fund a war.

He accused Trump of having “reckless economic policies” and said the Administration “has shown zero interest in spending a dime to actually improve the quality of life for the American people.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York

Sen. Chuck Schumer launched into multiple criticisms of the Trump Administration’s spending priorities following the initial reports of the supplemental request for the Iran war.

“If Trump wants $200 billion, it means he believes we will be at war for a very, very long time. That’s the last thing Americans want,” he argued.

The Senate Minority Leader said the money could instead “lower health care premiums for tens of millions of Americans” or “educate a generation and unleash the immense potential of our students.”

Schumer later shared the title of an article which reported some Americans are “choosing between insulin and buying gas” following health care cuts.

“Americans are being forced to choose between life-saving medicine and everyday necessities, all while Trump requests $200 billion more for his war,” he said. “This is Donald Trump’s America.”

Rep. Betty McCollum of Minnesota

Rep. Betty McCollum said she would be “very skeptical about flat-out supporting” a request for $200 billion. 

“We still haven’t gotten a full plan on how the Pentagon is planning on spending the money that they have,” she said. “The President chose on his own to go to war with Iran and spend very expensive munitions, and then turns around and says to Congress: ‘Oh, here’s the bill’. That’s not how it works.”

McCollum added the war is costing the U.S. a lot, both at home and abroad. “American lives have been lost, as well as our reputation,” she said.

Raising concerns about the rationale provided by the Trump Administration in regards to the war, McCollum argued the justification has thus far changed “day to day.”

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois

Sen. Dick Durbin described the forthcoming funding request as “not acceptable” but said he wasn’t surprised by the sum.

“This war is extremely expensive, and the President has put off a lot of priorities for America and its families to invade this country. It’s going to be extremely expensive, starting with American lives,” he told reporters on Capitol Hill. 

Durbin said that should the request land in Congress, Trump would have “a lot of persuading” to do. “Yesterday, we voted on the floor not to even discuss publicly this invasion of Iran. Now comes a $200 billion price tag. This is not acceptable,” he said.