For millions of Americans, the immediate effect of the U.S. war in Iran was felt at the gas pump, where prices have climbed sharply in the past two weeks. There’s ample evidence to suggest consumers can expect to see prices continue to get worse in the near future, not just on fuel but on a variety of other products, including food.

By and large, GOP officials aren’t denying the trends, though they are urging Americans to accept higher prices as an unfortunate necessity. Republican Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, one of Congress’ wealthiest members, conceded this week, “Unfortunately, prices are going to be up for a while” because of the war.

Republican Rep. Mark Alford of Missouri, meanwhile, said he believes his constituents are willing to accept cost-of-living hikes to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons that can hit the U.S.

And if Iran were anywhere close to having nuclear weapons capable of hitting the U.S., that might be a sensible argument. But since the idea was and is absurd, the congressman’s pitch falls far short.

One GOP senator was especially explicit, however, in making the larger point. As The New Republic summarized:

Kansas Senator Roger Marshall dismissed rising gas prices as a ‘sacrifice’ Americans needed to make for their freedom.

During an interview Tuesday night, Marshall became extremely defensive when CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins pressed back on his claim that soaring gas prices were simply ‘a little bit of a hiccup.’

After the host pressed the Kansas Republican on rising consumer costs, Marshall concluded, “Freedom is not free. Americans are gonna have to make some sacrifices.”

At face value, some viewers might have found this vaguely compelling. American service members and their families certainly have to make sacrifices during a war, and it stands to reason that civilians also have to accept the disadvantages that come when their country is engaged in combat operations abroad.

Except, in this instance, it’s not nearly that simple.

When American civilians accepted all kinds of sacrifices during World War II, for example, there was a broad understanding that day-to-day inconveniences were small prices to pay given the stakes of the global conflict.

But in 2026, a year and a half after Americans elected Republicans to help address affordability and the cost of living, it’s a much different story. Almost certainly with the knowledge that it’d push consumer costs higher, Donald Trump launched a war for reasons he has struggled to explain, with objectives he’s struggled to identify and after making no meaningful effort to convince Americans ahead of time that the mission was worthwhile.

Is it easy to believe Americans will be willing to sacrifice in pursuit of a noble goal? Yes. Has the White House made a coherent case that the war in Iran is worth the costs? No.

On the contrary, this war is unpopular on a historic scale, making it that much more difficult for assorted partisans to insist to Americans that they are “gonna have to make some sacrifices.”

The “freedom isn’t free” phrase is especially jarring under the circumstances. Our freedom was not in danger two weeks ago. The nation was not confronted with a binary choice between a war that increased the cost of living and the collapse of liberty in the U.S. The very idea is inherently ridiculous, and Marshall’s argument reflects a degree of election-year desperation that’s likely to get worse in the coming days, weeks and months.