Jennifer Shutt, Missouri Independent

WASHINGTON — Democratic Party leaders from a dozen states traveled to Washington, D.C., at the end of May to press for their voters to cast the first ballots in the next presidential primary.

State representatives argued that diversifying the early states would ensure Democrats nominate a presidential candidate who not only holds broad appeal among the base, but can ultimately win over independent voters in swing states and the White House in November 2028.

A final decision from the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee will, however, have to contend with state laws and the officials who actually set primary dates.

Iowa and New Hampshire traditionally hold the first caucus and first primary election for presidential candidates — though South Carolina had the first DNC-sanctioned primary in 2024 — and both states argued it’s better to stay that way.

“Look, New Hampshire will make every effort it can to comply with the Rules and Bylaws Committee, but there are some factors outside of our control,” said U.S. Sen. Maggie Hassan. “Our secretary of state is required by law to schedule the New Hampshire primary before other states.”

A “Write-In Joe Biden” campaign sign in a Portsmouth, New Hampshire, snow bank in 2024, when New Hampshire held its primary first in the nation in defiance of the Democratic National Committee. (Photo by Hadley Barndollar/New Hampshire Bulletin)

New Hampshire Democrats, she said, don’t believe their voters should pick the nominee, but would instead vet “the nominee so that they are better prepared for the states that follow, which will by definition be larger, more diverse and that’s really important too.”

“The one other thing I will add is that the Republicans are going to have the first-in-the-nation primary be New Hampshire,” Hassan added. “And there is a big vacuum when a whole bunch of Republican presidential candidates are coming into our state, highlighting local candidates who are Republicans and there isn’t the same fulsome, evenly balanced Democratic response. And I think that can put us at a disadvantage at the local level and occasionally at the federal level as well.”

Iowa Democrat Scott Brennan told panel members that state law “requires that we be a caucus and that we go before any competing process.”

Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rita Hart also noted that Republicans and the journalists who cover their campaigns will be in the state for months ahead of the GOP presidential primary.

“In 2028, no matter what your decision is regarding the nominating calendar, Iowa will be the center of politics because the Republicans will be here right along with scads of national reporters,” she said.

Members of the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee asked questions throughout the two days of presentations, including what states were doing to protect voter privacy, whether states had implemented restrictions on abortion and how much rent will cost campaign staffers for a one-bedroom apartment in larger cities.

State Democratic Party members repeatedly told the committee that voters in their home states are best positioned to winnow down what is expected to be a large group of presidential candidates. Here’s some of what they argued:

South Carolina

South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Christale Spain said her presentation wasn’t about keeping the state toward the front of the calendar for “nostalgia,” but “about whether the Democratic Party understands where the fight for democracy actually is.”

“This is not a routine calendar debate,” she said. “Republicans are not debating theory, they’re moving in real time to weaken voting rights, redraw maps, dilute Black political power and change the rules where they don’t like the voters’ choices.”

The Democratic Party, Spain said, must ensure that Black voters “help shape the nomination from the beginning” and argued South Carolina is best positioned to do that.

“If Black voters are the backbone of the Democratic Party, then the calendar should reflect that,” she added.

Spain also called on the national party to recognize that Southern states hold crucial Democratic voters, despite the fact that region of the country typically gives its Electoral College votes to Republican presidential candidates during the general election.

“If Democrats want a long-term national majority, we cannot write off the deep South and then act surprised when the math doesn’t work,” she said.

Drawing a contrast with many of the other states, Spain noted that in South Carolina, the Democratic Party’s executive committee picks the date of its primary, not state law or the secretary of state.

New Mexico

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham told the panel her state had “everything to offer” the party and its presidential candidates.

“We’re a minority-majority state,” she said. “We have demonstrated getting Democratic value-led policies on the ground in ways that no other poor state in this country’s history has done.”

The state’s economy, she said, would give Democrats the chance to dispel the notion that the two political parties offer a “binary choice” on key issues that could determine the outcome of the next presidential race.

“If you want truth and fairness, it’s got to be Democrats, but if you’re worried about jobs and if you’re working in oil and gas then you can’t vote for a Democrat. That’s just not true,” she said. “New Mexico outpaced Texas in oil and gas production last year and we have the lowest methane emissions of any state doing high-energy production. Guess what else? All of the energy to power the eastern United States is in New Mexico and what is it? It’s solar, it’s wind.”

The state would give Democratic presidential candidates the opportunity to talk about immigration and border security, which have been central to Republicans in the last several election cycles, she said.

“We can talk about public safety and the border and we can talk about energy in a way that renews our commitment to Democratic values and engages minority voters,” Lujan Grisham said, later adding that voters “want a cohesive approach to public safety, border security and fair support.”

The Trump administration’s “indiscriminate, unjust, unconstitutional deportation effort,” she said, has left voters from both political parties in the state “unhappy.”

“And it’s enough to get solid Republican voters to vote in a general election for a Democrat,” she said.

Georgia

Georgia Democratic Party Chair Charlie Bailey told the committee that having voters in the state go first during the next presidential primary would accomplish the “twin objectives of having a diverse electorate and being a battleground state.”

“No state better fits the stated goals that the DNC has for competitiveness, diversity and the accessibility that our infrastructure provides,” he said. “And our nationally recognized voter protection department has already proven its ability to guarantee fair, transparent and inclusive elections.”

Bailey told the panel that Georgia is the only state in the South with two Democratic U.S. senators and represents the party’s best chance to gain a foothold in that region.

Whether the secretary of state would actually move the primary date depends on whom voters elect to the role this November, he said.

A Democrat winning the seat would very likely schedule whatever the DNC chooses, but a Republican keeping that role would need to decide whether it’s in their party’s best interest to move the presidential primary election earlier in the year.

Michigan

Michigan Democratic Party Chair Curtis Hertel said his state’s history as a battleground in the general election and its demographics make it a strong candidate for the early window.

“There are very few states that represent the entire political spectrum of what the Democratic Party is. Michigan is one of them,” he said. “We’re the most diverse battleground state in the country. We look like America.”

Michigan, he said, would give presidential candidates a platform to talk about the party’s support for unions, wages and other cost-of-living issues.

Hertel said that every investment a Democratic presidential candidate makes in the state would be “important to winning the general election.”

North Carolina

North Carolina Democratic Party Chair Anderson Clayton said the state’s location, diversity and rural communities make it a strong choice.

“Democrats have been losing rural America. It’s no secret to anybody we have not been engaging in these communities,” she said. “And to me one of the biggest ways that we can put a priority on them again is investing in a state that, again, besides Texas, has the second-highest rural population.”

Clayton said the state also represents a chance for Democratic presidential candidates to speak with a cross-section of the party’s base.

“If you can win races in North Carolina, presidents that are battleground and battle tested here can win in other states across the country that we have not consistently won as Democrats, but we used to and we need to win back,” she said.

Nevada

Nevada U.S. Rep. Steven Horsford said the state has everything a Democratic presidential candidate needs to win both the primary and then the general election.

“Elevating a union-strong, diverse and highly competitive battleground state will lay the foundation to help Democrats win back the trust of working class voters and voters of color,” he said. “We are the working class. We are the coalition Democrats must win to win America and we represent the future of our party.”

Virginia

Former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe said the purple state holds the different types of voters Democratic candidates need to hone their policy goals and their message.

“I promise you if you put Virginia early in that calendar, they are going to put every presidential candidate through the toughest set of questions,” he said. “You’re going to have to answer military questions, urban questions, rural questions. And if you can’t do that you’re not going to be successful. That’s what we want as our nominee in 2028 and we have the ability to do that.”

Democrats throughout Virginia, including those just outside Washington, D.C., whose lives were affected by the Trump administration’s cuts to the federal workforce, are well suited to ensure any nominee is ready to win a general election, he said.

Tennessee

Tennessee state Sen. London Lamar told panel members voters in that state shouldn’t be “afterthoughts” when it comes to vetting presidential candidates.

“Tennessee sits at the center of the South. We border eight states, which means our influence is not just local, not just statewide, but it’s regional,” she said. “What happens in Tennessee has the power to reach across the South and shape national momentum, because we all know the South is the last battleground of this nation. And if we win the South, we take the nation every single presidential election.”

Voters in and around Memphis, she said, represent “the very people Democrats say we are fighting for — working families; Black voters; young people; communities demanding affordability, representation, justice and opportunity.”

“Memphis is one of the largest majority Black cities in America,” she added. “And African American voters remain the backbone of the Democratic Party.”

WASHINGTON — Members of Congress have not formally authorized a war in Iran, though they may soon be expected to approve emergency funding for the endeavor without any projection from the Trump administration as to how long it may last or the full cost, not just in dollars but in American troop and civilian lives.

Experts on defense spending interviewed by States Newsroom say the cost of weeks of air bombing will mount into the billions of dollars, a sum that will balloon if ground troops are sent into Iran to undertake regime change and if the war extends for months to come.

Defense Department officials briefed Congress on Monday that the Pentagon spent $5.6 billion on munitions alone during the first two days of the war, according to a congressional aide not authorized to speak publicly. The aide expects DOD has spent into the double digits in the days since.

President Donald Trump has sent mixed signals about the timeline and end goals for the war, called Operation Epic Fury. He at first said the bombing campaign he began alongside the Israeli government could last between four and six weeks and on Monday said it is possible it will end “quickly.” Trump, however, hasn’t ruled out a longer assault or the deployment of ground troops.

Republican lawmakers who control Congress say the ongoing attack is an essential national security undertaking and that they won’t constrain Trump in his role as commander-in-chief.

Democrats, who tried unsuccessfully to remove U.S. troops from hostilities until approved by Congress, will be needed to provide enough votes to move any supplemental spending request through the Senate — one possible obstacle to a prolonged conflict.

Even a relatively brief war will have long-lasting, far-reaching consequences for the millions of people pulled into the conflict.

“One lesson of history is that a war that is supposedly short or brief has these huge repercussions that ripple across time,” said Stephanie Savell, director of the Cost of War project at the Watson School of International & Public Affairs at Brown University.

Neither the White House nor the Office of Management and Budget have disclosed publicly how much the bombing has cost taxpayers so far or how much spending it might eventually require. A Defense Department spokesperson said they “have nothing to provide on this at this time.” The top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, has asked the Congressional Budget Office to come up with a number.

Comparison with Iraq, Afghanistan

Michael O’Hanlon, director of research in the foreign policy program at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution, said a ballpark estimate for the military costs of war during an “extended air campaign” would normally run a couple of billion dollars a month.

“But at this point, I think we’re more likely in the couple billion a week range,” he said.

Achieving long-lasting regime change, which Trump has spoken about often since the war began, could be much more costly, both in terms of American spending and troops’ lives, as well as civilian casualties.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq averaged about $1 million per deployed U.S. troop per year once all of the infrastructure, equipment, health care and other factors were rolled into the cost of war.

During the peak of those wars, O’Hanlon said, there were about 100,000 to 175,000 troops in those two countries and the United States was spending about $200 billion annually.

“If you needed at least 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, you could conceivably need a quarter million or more in Iran if you’re really going to try to occupy and stabilize the whole country,” he said. “So that means now you’re getting into the range of $250 to $300 billion a year for a presence that would stay in Iran for a full 12 months. And then each and every year it would be additional.”

That, however, is just the potential cost for the military. It doesn’t include damage to U.S. diplomatic facilities in the region or other costs associated with war.

“You’ve got your infrastructure damage as well as higher energy costs around the world. And already talk of less fertilizer being produced, which is going to reduce crop yields,” O’Hanlon said. “So there are all sorts of second-order effects.”

‘Wars are never quick or cheap or easy’

The death toll for U.S. troops, seven of whom have already died, could also increase depending on the scope of the conflict.

There were about 150 combat fatalities during the first Gulf War in the early 1990s, as well as about 150 deaths from training and accidents in the lead-up and aftermath, O’Hanlon said.

The war in Afghanistan led to the deaths of about 2,500 U.S. troops across roughly two decades. About 4,500 Americans died in the 15 years of the war in Iraq, he said.

Savell, of the Cost of War program at Brown University, said research has shown that “wars are never quick or cheap or easy.”

The Iraq War that began in 2003, she said, is one of many examples of political leaders messaging ahead of time that a conflict would be “short and decisive and relatively inexpensive.”

“We see many of those kinds of narratives being, you know, a refrain these days in relation to Iran as well,” Savell said. “So I think that the comparison in that sense is apt.”

The Iraq war also had major unanticipated consequences for those living in the region, including “that the U.S. invasion was partially responsible for the rise of the Islamic State,” Savell said.

“And that militant group has now spread its terror attacks around the world,” she said.

In addition to the direct deaths of both troops and civilians that come from bullets, bombs and other weapons of war, there will be indirect deaths that stem from a lack of clean water, food and medical care.

“Those kinds of things have really, really long-lasting and deep impacts for people, especially women and children,” Savell said. “In contemporary wars, children ages zero to five are often the ones who end up suffering in the long term because of the diseases and the malnutrition that can be a reverberating effect of war.”

Regime change ambitions

Seth G. Jones, president of the defense and security department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said during a roundtable discussion that he believes it will be “very difficult” for the U.S. and Israeli militaries to cause “major damage to the Iranian regime largely from air and naval assets.”

“I think even with ground troops, trying to social engineer a foreign government is incredibly difficult,” he said.

The U.S. military’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as operations in Libya, he said, all used a combination of tactics, including ground forces.

“Those wars persisted for years, if not decades, after that. And we saw civil wars in all three cases and insurgencies,” Jones said. “So, trying to do that without a meaningful ground presence, I think, is going to be virtually impossible. And then you run the risk of what the U.S. did in 1991 in Iraq and Hungary in 1956, which is it urged individuals to rise up, and they were slaughtered in both cases, the Kurds and the Hungarians.”

Shaping an entirely new Iranian regime, he said, would take “months if not longer.”

A prolonged conflict could lead to several challenges for the U.S. military, one of which will be restocking munitions like the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, about a quarter of which were drawn down in 2025, according to Jones.

“The more the U.S. fires, the less munitions it has, offensive and defensive, including available for its war plans … against China in the Taiwan Strait, against North Korea on the Korean Peninsula and against Russia,” Jones said.

There is also a chance the conflict could widen even further if Iranian supporters outside of that country decide to begin targeting the U.S. military or civilians.

“Do the Houthis start firing from Yemen? Do we see Iraqi Shia militia start conducting attacks, including against U.S. forces in Syria, Iraq, Jordan, or other locations?” Jones said. “Or do we see the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Quds Force and its partners conduct attacks elsewhere? We know they’ve conducted assassination plots, at least, in the U.S., including in the city of Washington. So how does that expand?”

The defense budget

Mara Karlin, visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution and a professor of practice at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, said during a panel discussion that while the U.S. military has a large budget, its resources aren’t infinite.

Congress approved $838.7 billion for the Department of Defense in January as part of its annual government funding process. Republicans approved another $150 billion for the Pentagon to spend on specific programs, like air and missile defense, as well as shipbuilding, in their “big, beautiful” law enacted in 2025.

“Fundamentally, the U.S. military can often find ways to walk and chew gum; it just gets really hard to do so and the costs can only increase,” she said.

And while the possibility of Trump sending in U.S. ground forces isn’t completely out of the picture, Karlin said that “is almost inconceivable.”

“Ground troops mean you’re getting ready for a lot of casualties, especially given that you have the potential for regime collapse,” she said.

Making that type of choice, to put U.S. troops into Iran, would likely ensure the war “will be long and it will be ugly,” despite the possibility of significant change.

“Iraq 2026 actually looks pretty different. The costs to get to that from 2003 onward were so extraordinarily high,” Karlin said. “And I think that it is safe to assume that if one were to use that analogy, you would see something as rough, if not much, much worse.”