An Open Letter to Congressman Jim Himes: When Did You Decide to Start the Clock?

Dear Congressman Himes,

You recently sent Connecticut residents an email asking whether gasoline, groceries, electricity and airline tickets cost more than they did before President Trump “led us into” what you called a “disastrous and unconstitutional war” with Iran.

Your email did more than ask a question. Its wording supplied the desired conclusion before constituents could answer.

At a time when our country is already deeply divided, I found that disappointing. You did not invite a serious conversation about Iran, presidential authority or the difficult balance between national security and economic consequences. You selected a politically convenient starting date and framed a complicated issue as a partisan indictment.

The date on which you start the clock determines the story you tell.

You began your clock immediately before the Iran conflict. That allows you to attribute every subsequent price increase to President Trump while ignoring the economic circumstances he inherited.

I begin the economic clock earlier.

The Inflation Story Did Not Begin With Iran

From January 2021 through January 2025, overall consumer prices increased approximately 22%. Annual inflation reached 9.1% in June 2022, its highest rate in roughly four decades.

The national weekly average price of regular gasoline reached $5.006 per gallon in June 2022. That remains the highest nominal weekly gasoline price in the Energy Information Administration’s national series.

Those events occurred during the Biden administration.

That does not mean President Biden personally set every price, just as President Trump does not personally set every price today. Presidents operate within global markets, wars, supply disruptions, monetary policy and countless other forces.

But if you are going to connect prices directly to a president, you cannot fairly begin the calculation only when doing so benefits your party.

What Prices Are Actually Doing

Some prices are higher than immediately before the Iran conflict. I do not deny that.

The national weekly average price of gasoline increased from $2.937 per gallon immediately before the conflict to $4.157 in early September. That is a substantial increase, and disruption involving Iran and the Strait of Hormuz is an important cause.

Overall grocery prices, however, increased by less than 1% between February and August 2026. Electricity increased approximately 2.5%. Airline fares — a particularly volatile category accounting for only a small part of the average consumer’s spending — rose more sharply.

Other prices moved in the opposite direction. The average price of Grade A large eggs fell from approximately $4.95 per dozen in January 2025 to approximately $2.27 in August 2026, a decline of roughly 54%.

I would not use eggs alone to claim that the entire cost of living has fallen. By the same standard, airline tickets alone cannot establish that the entire cost of living has exploded.

The honest conclusion is that different prices have moved differently. Gasoline is the clearest and most consequential conflict-related increase, while today’s overall price level still reflects the enormous inflation Americans absorbed during the preceding four years.

“Unconstitutional” Is Your Position, Not a Settled Fact

You described the Iran war as unconstitutional as though a court had already decided the matter.

It has not.

Congress did not enact a specific authorization for the February 28 operation. That gives you and other opponents a serious argument under Article I and the War Powers Resolution.

The administration, however, asserts that the President acted under his Article II authority as Commander in Chief to protect the United States, American forces and American interests. Presidents from both parties have repeatedly employed military force without first receiving a formal declaration of war.

The constitutional division of war powers remains heavily disputed. You may believe President Trump exceeded his authority, but your belief is not the equivalent of a definitive judicial ruling.

Democrats Recognized the Iranian Threat Too

Concern about Iran did not originate with Donald Trump.

President Obama said Iran would not obtain a nuclear weapon on his watch and kept every option — including military action — available. President Biden said Iran would never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. Kamala Harris called Iran America’s leading adversary during the 2024 campaign.

In 2008, Hillary Clinton warned of devastating retaliation if Iran launched a nuclear attack against Israel. Her statement concerned retaliation, not a preventive American war, but it demonstrated how seriously she viewed the danger.

For decades, Democratic and Republican leaders agreed that a nuclear-armed Iran would be unacceptable. They talked about the threat, negotiated with Iran and imposed sanctions.

President Trump ultimately decided that continuing to wait presented the greater danger.

Iran Was Not an Imaginary Threat

Before the war, Iran had accumulated uranium enriched to 60%, far beyond ordinary civilian-reactor requirements and a short technical step from weapons-grade material. International inspectors had unresolved questions involving nuclear material at undeclared locations.

Iran also supported terrorist organizations and armed proxy forces across the Middle East. The State Department has repeatedly described Iran as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.

During the present conflict, Iran demonstrated its reach by launching missiles and drones against Israel, American personnel and facilities, regional countries and commercial shipping. Its actions disrupted the Strait of Hormuz and affected international energy markets.

The public intelligence record did not prove that Iran had made a final decision to construct a bomb. But a president does not have the luxury of waiting for an adversarial regime to publish its final plans.

You receive classified briefings, Congressman. You therefore understand better than most Americans that the President possesses intelligence the public does not see. That does not make any president infallible. It should, however, make elected officials cautious about pretending the decision involved no genuine threat or intelligence-based judgment.

The Obama Administration’s Cash Transfer Also Belongs in the Record

In 2016, the Obama administration transferred $1.7 billion to Iran in cash: $400 million representing principal from an unresolved pre-revolution arms transaction and approximately $1.3 billion in negotiated interest.

That money was not technically a foreign-aid gift. It resolved a longstanding legal claim, and the administration argued that settling avoided the possibility of a much larger judgment.

But Americans were entitled to question the wisdom of delivering $1.7 billion in cash to a regime that the United States identified as a leading state sponsor of terrorism. Money is fungible. Once delivered, it strengthened the financial position of that regime regardless of the legal explanation for the payment.

That history is relevant when evaluating the difference between administrations that attempted to manage Iran and a president who decided the danger could no longer be postponed.

Connecticut’s Government Adds Its Own Cost at the Pump

Your gasoline question also omits Connecticut’s role.

Connecticut imposes a fixed gasoline excise tax of 25 cents per gallon. That fixed tax is below the national average and is not one of America’s highest by itself.

Connecticut also imposes an unusual 8.1% Petroleum Products Gross Earnings Tax on the first wholesale sale of petroleum products. Although distributors legally pay it, the economic cost is generally reflected in retail gasoline prices.

Because it is percentage-based, that burden rises when wholesale gasoline prices rise. At one documented wholesale price of $3.57 per gallon, its estimated effect — including the associated surcharge — was approximately 31 cents per gallon. Combined with the fixed excise tax, that represented an estimated state-imposed burden of approximately 56 cents per gallon.

The precise wholesale-tax burden fluctuates. But if you want an honest conversation about what Connecticut motorists pay, Connecticut’s own tax policies cannot be left out.

The Man Behind the Curtain

My concern extends beyond one political party.

When I refer to “the swamp,” I am not talking only about Democrats. I am also talking about lifelong Republican officials, entrenched bureaucracies, government contractors, lobbying interests and institutions that accumulate power and resist scrutiny.

I think of The Wizard of Oz.

Dorothy and her companions approached an intimidating figure surrounded by smoke, noise and spectacle. They were told not to look behind the curtain. Then Toto pulled it back and exposed an ordinary man operating the machinery.

My fear is that too much of Washington works the same way.

Federal money passes through layers of departments, contractors, nonprofit organizations and nongovernmental organizations. Some of that spending serves legitimate and important purposes. Some programs are wasteful or poorly monitored, and fraud does occur. Citizens deserve evidence establishing which is which — not sweeping assurances from the same institutions responsible for spending the money.

The government should welcome transparent audits, publish verifiable findings and permit independent scrutiny. Allegations of fraud should be proved with records. Government agencies should then recover misspent money and hold responsible parties accountable, regardless of their political affiliation.

“Do not look behind the curtain” is unacceptable whether the person guarding it is a Democrat or Republican.

The Cost of Acting — and the Cost of Waiting

I believe President Trump understood that confronting Iran could increase energy prices and damage him politically. He also had to understand that controversial decisions could hurt Republican candidates in the midterm elections.

He acted anyway.

I cannot prove President Trump’s private motivations, and no one can prove the counterfactual — what would have happened had America continued waiting. Perhaps diplomacy would eventually have succeeded. Perhaps Iran would have retreated from the nuclear threshold.

Or perhaps the United States would have waited until Iran possessed a weapon and the opportunity to stop it had disappeared.

Waiting was not a risk-free choice. It was a decision carrying its own potentially devastating consequences.

My belief is that President Trump entered his second term knowing his clearest opportunity to make consequential changes might last only until the midterm elections. I believe he decided to confront the hardest problems while he still possessed the ability to act — even if doing so cost him popularity and endangered his party’s congressional majority.

That is my interpretation and my judgment. I do not present it as something I can prove by reading his mind.

Why I Support the Decision

I am a father. When I evaluate this decision, I think beyond the next election and beyond today’s gasoline price.

I think about the world my children will inherit.

I believe they may live in a safer world because an American president finally confronted the possibility of a nuclear-capable Iran instead of issuing another warning and leaving the problem to his successor.

I recognize the human, economic and political costs of war. Supporting President Trump does not require denying those costs. It means believing that the foreseeable cost of continued inaction was potentially greater.

The ultimate outcome is not yet known. Long-term peace cannot be declared six months into a continuing conflict. But neither should short-term economic pain automatically prove that the decision was wrong.

My Request to You

Congressman Himes, you have every right to oppose President Trump and challenge his decisions. You also have a responsibility to communicate with constituents honestly and constructively.

Calling a disputed war definitively “unconstitutional,” selecting the most advantageous starting date for a price comparison and presenting a partisan conclusion as a constituent survey do not bring Connecticut residents together.

Tell us what prices did during the Biden administration. Tell us what happened after the Iran conflict began. Tell us which prices rose and which fell. Tell us what Connecticut itself adds to gasoline costs.

Explain your preferred alternative to military action. Tell us how long you would have waited, what evidence would have justified action and what you would have done if Iran crossed the nuclear threshold.

Most importantly, acknowledge that every available choice carried risks.

You started your clock in February 2026.

I started mine years earlier — with Iran’s enrichment, its terrorism sponsorship, decades of bipartisan warnings and four years of punishing American inflation.

Connecticut residents deserve to see the entire clock.