US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth faced intense questioning on Capitol Hill as lawmakers pressed him over the strategy, cost, and justification of the ongoing conflict with Iran. The hearing, held before the House Armed Services Committee, centred on the Pentagon’s proposed $1.45 trillion budget—an increase of roughly 40 per cent compared to the current year—which has drawn scrutiny for its scale amid an active military campaign.
Democratic lawmakers strongly challenged the rationale behind the war, questioning what tangible outcomes had been achieved so far and criticising the Trump administration for what they described as shifting explanations for initiating military action. During the session, Hegseth clashed directly with Congressman John Garamendi, who labelled the conflict a political and economic failure. In response, Hegseth defended the mission, arguing that it was necessary to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and asserting that public support for the operation remained intact despite criticism.
Rejecting comparisons to prolonged conflicts such as Iraq and Afghanistan, Hegseth maintained that the war—now approximately two months old—had already produced meaningful results and should not be characterised as a prolonged quagmire. He criticised opponents of the campaign, accusing them of undermining national interests through what he described as defeatist rhetoric.
A particularly sharp exchange occurred with Congressman Adam Smith over Iran’s nuclear capabilities and the administration’s justification for military action. Smith pointed out inconsistencies in the administration’s claims, noting that earlier statements had framed Iran’s nuclear programme as an imminent threat, while more recent remarks suggested it had been significantly weakened. Hegseth responded by asserting that Iran had not abandoned its nuclear ambitions and continued to possess substantial missile capabilities. Smith countered that the conflict had not altered the strategic situation in any meaningful way.
During the hearing, the Pentagon provided its first public estimate of the war’s cost, placing it at approximately $25 billion so far. Jules Hurst III, the acting assistant secretary for defence finances, explained that most of the expenditure had gone toward munitions, operational costs, and replacing equipment. He indicated that a supplemental funding request would be submitted through the White House once a comprehensive assessment of total costs is completed. The overall financial burden is expected to grow, particularly as the Pentagon pushes for a record defence budget nearing $1.5 trillion, which Hegseth argued is essential to maintaining US military dominance.
Congressman Ro Khanna raised concerns about the domestic economic consequences of the conflict, questioning how rising fuel and food costs linked to the war would affect American households. In response, Hegseth reframed the issue by asking what the cost of an Iranian nuclear weapon would be, emphasising the perceived long-term risks. Khanna criticised the administration for failing to deliver on economic promises and warned that instability in critical regions—particularly disruptions to the Strait of Hormuz—could significantly drive up global prices.
Lawmakers also questioned whether the Pentagon had adequately assessed escalation risks, including the possibility of Iran attempting to block maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. Hegseth responded by stating that the US had considered such scenarios and suggested that American measures had effectively countered potential threats. Congressman Seth Moulton challenged this reasoning, arguing that the explanation oversimplified the situation.
Seated alongside Hegseth, General Dan Caine declined to provide operational specifics but stated that military planners consistently present a full range of carefully evaluated options along with associated risks.
Throughout the hearing, Hegseth continued to defend both the war effort and the proposed defence budget, while also criticising members of Congress whom he accused of weakening national resolve through their opposition. The session highlighted deep divisions within US political leadership over the direction, cost, and broader implications of the conflict with Iran.
