Despite President Donald Trump insisting in public that the U.S. weapons stockpile is just fine, his rant on Truth Social Thursday saying he would “hunt down” those who leaked “treasonous” information about the reduced U.S. munitions exposed the president’s underlying concern.

New analysis shows the ongoing Iran war has depleted U.S. supplies of missiles — especially those that can hit other incoming missiles.

Those types of expensive munitions have been used to defend U.S. bases in the Middle East from Iranian bombardments in recent months, as well as by allies protecting themselves from incoming Iranian missile and drone attacks.

Recent analysis from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a bipartisan research center in Washington, D.C., shows the U.S. renewing or escalating the Iran conflict would test severely diminished inventories of interceptors. 

According to the CSIS data — based on the Defense Department’s 2027 budget and publicly released information — the U.S. has roughly between 759 and 827 Patriot interceptors and around 250 THAAD interceptors remaining – down from 2,300 and 452 before the war, respectively.

In practice, that means the U.S. and Gulf allies must take more risks with interceptions, letting some Iranian projectiles through if they do not threaten personnel or assets, NBC News previously reported. 

And while the U.S. has systems that can compensate for depleted long-range attack missiles, there are no viable replacements for critical Patriot and THAAD missile defenses, said Mark Cancian, senior advisor with CSIS Defense and Security department and former chief of the Force Structure and Investment Division within the Office of Management and Budget.

“They are not as effective or entail more risk, but they’re there. We would not be reduced to throwing rocks at the Iranians. But with ballistic missile defense, there really aren’t alternatives,” Cancian told MS NOW.

The available alternatives to Tomahawks and other long-range missiles have a shorter range and require U.S. forces to get closer to their targets, he said, thus increasing the risk of U.S. casualties.

President Trump took to Truth Social just after midnight early Thursday morning to try to assure the public that the U.S. has plenty of weapons in its supplies.

“The U.S. has massive amounts of ‘munitions,’ especially of certain types,” Trump posted, noting the increase in weapons production and threatening “long term jail sentences” for leakers. 

Yet Trump’s own statements are contradictory – either the reporting is fabricated and there are no munitions shortages, or the revelations are accurate and therefore prosecutable.

The Washington Post reported that last week at Camp David Trump demanded answers from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth as to why he had apparently been misled about munitions shortages that now threaten to limit military options with Iran. They cited two people familiar with the exchange.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt insisted “this literally never happened” and Trump wrote in another Truth Social on Thursday that he is “extremely happy with the job that Pete Hegseth is doing.” 

But the reported episode underscores the level of frustration within the Trump administration around both the diminished stockpile and public reporting on it.

“Claims of U.S. munition shortages are false,” Chief Pentagon Spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a statement, adding that such reports embolden enemies “to provoke — or attack — American troops.”

“America’s military remains the most powerful fighting force on earth,” Parnell said. “We have everything required to strike at the time and place of the President’s choosing.”

Recommended

But even Trump himself recently acknowledged he’d like to have more munitions. 

Pressed on Thursday as to why the supplemental request is needed if there were not shortages, Trump acknowledged that while defense companies are ramping up production — including a new $3 billion contract with Northrop Grumman announced this week — more is needed.

“Look, we gave a tremendous amount to Ukraine,” Trump told reporters. “We have certain types of munitions that are very powerful, that we have unlimited, virtual unlimited supply. We have others where it’s a little bit tighter.”

Biden worked with Congress to supply billions of dollars in defensive weapons and economic assistance after Russia expanded its invasion in 2022.

According to CSIS, only four of the 102 military assets supplied to Ukraine have been used in the air campaign against iran: Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS), Precision Strike Missiles (PrSMs), High-speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARMs), and most notably, roughly 600 Patriot interceptors.

Even though officials publicly balk at the idea that the U.S. is not fully equipped to address current and future challenges, the Trump administration is keenly aware of its shortfalls in key munitions — as evidenced in its spending request for munitions to the tune of $95 billion in next year’s defense budget and $21 billion in this year’s supplemental bill.

But missiles take time to build. So ramping up production now won’t make the near-term military decisions any easier. 

“Sustaining the commitment to higher production levels will make this problem go away in the midterm and the long term,” Cancian said. “In the short term, there’s not a whole lot you can do. We are changing our shot doctrine, reducing the number of missiles that we use, taking some risk there.”

If the munitions shortage isn’t addressed, it creates a “near- to medium-term risk” for U.S. readiness against China, CSIS concluded. It will also influence how American leaders make military decisions and assess risks for years to come. 

“This should be an element of decision making about U.S. use of force, and it will be, I think, for the next four or five years until we rebuild these inventories,” Cancian said. 

According to Cancian, the current stockpile scarcity could have been avoided. But that would have required Trump negotiating a ceasefire deal earlier with Iran.

“If they had been able to make a deal at week five, we wouldn’t be having this problem,” said Cancian. “So they could have started the war as long as they ended it at week five, then the inventories would be down, but we’d have more time to rebuild them.”

Julia Jester

Julia Jester covers politics for MS NOW and is based in Washington, D.C.