A Democratic bill with 4 Democratic cosponsors · See all 4 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Appropriations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is known as the Illegal War Refund Act. It requires the government to calculate the total economic costs to U.S. taxpayers from the Iran war each year. These costs include negative impacts like higher interest rates, fuel prices, food prices, and inflation. The money to cover these costs will be taken from unobligated funds at the Department of Defense. Finally, the Secretary of the Treasury will use these funds to make payments to U.S. taxpayers and their dependents.
Yes· 3 of 10
- Scored +4
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Cash payments provide meaningful financial relief to low-income households struggling with inflation and high prices.
- Scored +4
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill explicitly prohibits checks or related documents from bearing the name, signature, or likeness of any elected official.
- Scored +3
Would children be better off under this?
Payments include provisions for dependents, directly benefiting children.
The opposite
- Scored -5
Does this reduce what is spent on the military?
Shifting unobligated Department of Defense funds away from defense accounts reduces available resources for military operations and programs.
- Scored -4
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill mandates large transfer payments funded by redirecting unobligated Department of Defense funds.
- Scored -2
Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together?
The redirection of Department of Defense unobligated funds could indirectly impact broader defense program resources.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2(c) requires the Secretary of the Treasury to make payments to individuals who filed a tax return and to their dependents. This is a positive outcome because people will receive money to help compensate for the costs of the Iran war.
-
Section 2(c)(2) states that any letter, check, or document related to the payment cannot bear the name, signature, or likeness of any elected official. This keeps our elected officials accountable by preventing them from using taxpayer-funded relief checks as personal political advertisements.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 2(b)(1) transfers funds from the unobligated funds available to the Department of Defense to pay for these refunds. Depending on how the Department of Defense relies on these unobligated funds, shifting this money away could create burdens or negative consequences for military programs that were expecting to use those resources, though military personnel, military construction, and the Defense Health Program accounts are explicitly excluded from this transfer under Section 2(b)(2).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Cash payments provide meaningful financial relief to low-income households struggling with inflation and high prices. Would children be better off under this? — Payments include provisions for dependents, directly benefiting children. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Direct financial payments compensate middle-aged taxpayers for increased war-related costs. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Direct payments offset some of the negative economic impacts of war-related inflation for middle-class taxpayers. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Direct financial payments compensate senior taxpayers for increased war-related costs. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Direct financial payments compensate young adult taxpayers for increased war-related costs. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Tax filers generally receive payments regardless of income level, though the impact is relatively smaller for high-income earners. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — The redirection of Department of Defense unobligated funds could indirectly impact broader defense program resources.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this reduce what is spent on the military? — Shifting unobligated Department of Defense funds away from defense accounts reduces available resources for military operations and programs.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill explicitly prohibits checks or related documents from bearing the name, signature, or likeness of any elected official.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Providing direct financial payments to taxpayers and dependents helps alleviate economic strains.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — Direct payments to taxpayers and dependents inject financial relief to offset war-related economic burdens. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill mandates large transfer payments funded by redirecting unobligated Department of Defense funds.
- 9/17/2026
- Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Appropriations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 4 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Jesús GarcíaDemocrat · Illinois
Val HoyleDemocrat · Oregon
Pramila JayapalDemocrat · Washington
Bonnie Watson ColemanDemocrat · New Jersey