Khanna slams $400B war bill as gas hits $4: 'Why are we subsidizing one of the richest countries?'

WASHINGTON, DC: Representative Ro Khanna (D-Calif) on Sunday, April 19, sharply criticized the Trump administration’s handling of the Middle East conflict, citing an estimated $400 billion cost to US taxpayers and raising concerns about its domestic economic impact.

Speaking on ABC’s 'This Week', the House Armed Services Committee member described the ongoing 47-day conflict as a major strategic and financial burden.

Khanna pointed to rising fuel prices as a direct consequence of the crisis, noting that gasoline costs have increased from approximately $2.30 per gallon to over $4 in recent weeks. 

He questioned the allocation of federal resources, asking why funds are being directed toward overseas military operations rather than domestic priorities such as healthcare, employment, and childcare.

Lawmaker warns of strain on domestic spending

The $400 billion figure cited by Khanna has intensified debate over the economic implications of the conflict.

He argued that the scale of spending represents a significant diversion of federal resources at a time when domestic programs face funding pressures. 

Khanna also referenced the broader impact of the conflict, including disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, which handles nearly 20% of global oil supply. He noted that the waterway’s instability has contributed to volatility in global energy markets and rising costs at the pump.

While administration officials maintain that military operations have achieved key objectives, Khanna said several strategic challenges remain unresolved.

He cited ongoing concerns about Iran’s nuclear capabilities and shifting geopolitical alignments, including increased engagement between Tehran and Beijing.

Ro Khanna questions scale of US aid to Israel

Khanna also addressed US military assistance to Israel, aligning with a group of Democratic lawmakers calling for reassessment of aid policies. He referenced Israel’s approximately $45 billion defense budget and questioned the continued scale of US support.

“Why are we subsidizing one of the richest countries in the world?” Khanna said, raising concerns about the use of US-supplied equipment in conflict zones.

His remarks reflect a broader debate within the Democratic Party over foreign aid priorities and conditions tied to military assistance.

Lawmakers involved in the discussion have emphasized the need for policy alignment with broader diplomatic goals, including efforts toward a two-state solution. 

The issue is expected to remain a point of contention as Congress reviews future defense spending packages.

Moral credibility lost on global stage

Khanna also raised concerns about the international perception of US actions, arguing that recent rhetoric and military strategies could affect America’s standing on the global stage.

He pointed to ongoing tensions surrounding infrastructure targeting and the broader conduct of the conflict.

The administration has defended its approach as necessary to achieve long-term security objectives, including addressing Iran’s nuclear program. 

However, Khanna said the strategy risks reinforcing hardline positions within Iran’s leadership while complicating diplomatic efforts.

As negotiations continue ahead of the April 21 ceasefire deadline, Khanna said the focus should shift toward domestic priorities and long-term economic stability.