“Good luck,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), a leadership member, told the Washington Examiner. “What Democrat is going to vote to fund an illegal war that is turning into a bigger ham-handed disaster every minute?”

But not all Democrats are willing to outright dismiss the notion, previewing a looming divide within the minority party that’s otherwise presented a mostly unified front against Trump’s unilateral military actions abroad in places such as Venezuela, Iran, Ecuador, and the Caribbean Sea. Several centrist senators won’t rule out additional funds for ongoing Middle East operations that have already killed six U.S. troops, to replenish munitions stockpiles used abroad, and for domestic protections, especially with Congress’s inability to halt Trump.

“There’s going to be a cost in this war that we haven’t budgeted for,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. “There is going to be a need for funding, and we need some answers before we provide it.”

Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), a former CIA analyst and Pentagon official, criticized the prospect of appropriating more funds to an already massive $1 trillion military budget but left the door open, stating she would need additional information about long-term objectives.

“I don’t rule anything out. I mean, we’re in it,” Slotkin told the Washington Examiner. “But this is exactly what the president said he wasn’t going to do — constantly get us in this cycle of wars, where outside the appropriation cycle, we need yet another supplemental that’s outside the enormous amount of money the Pentagon already has.”

In a 53-47 chamber, the Republican majority would need at least seven Democrats to cross the aisle. Democrats expect at least one in their rank, Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), who’s repeatedly broken with his party in recent votes on Trump’s Iran war powers and government funding, to side with more funding.

“They can bring a supplemental bill, but I don’t think — with the exception of one Democrat — there’ll be any votes for it,” Murphy added in an apparent reference to Fetterman.

The White House has made no official spending ask but is reportedly weighing a multibillion-dollar emergency request. Following classified briefings in recent days with senior administration officials such as War Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Republican lawmakers foreshadowed the need for additional funding.

“If you’re going to be a bear, be a grizzly,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), an Appropriations Committee member. “I don’t see how any member of Congress, now that we’re in this, can allow our military not to have sufficient funds. We’re not there yet, but if we get there, Congress is going to appropriate the money.”

Democrats, staunchly opposed to a supplemental spending measure, are proposing that the administration find the funds elsewhere, such as from the $150 billion in extra War Department funding in Trump’s “big, beautiful” tax law passed last year.

“They should use their slush fund,” said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI), who’s set to become the second-ranked Democrat next year. “There’s plenty of money for that. They didn’t even know when they passed the bill what they were going to spend it on. Spend it on that.”

TRUMP AVOIDS IRAN SETBACK WITH SENATE WAR POWERS VOTE

Republican leaders could also try to sweeten any request with spending priorities from Democrats and lawmakers in the GOP-controlled House, including for Ukraine, farmers, and natural disaster relief.

“Before you can feel satisfied about a supplemental — and I haven’t seen it — you have to know what the real goals are and what the endgame is,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said.