Hegseth Faces Sharp Questions on $25B Iran Costs as War Powers Deadline Nears

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth prepares to appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday amid growing questions about the cost, strategy and legal basis of U.S. military action against Iran. The hearing, nominally focused on the Pentagon’s proposed $1.5 trillion budget for fiscal 2027, arrives one day before the 60-day clock under the 1973 War Powers Resolution expires. That deadline, set after President Trump ordered strikes in late February without prior congressional authorization, forces lawmakers to confront whether they will formally endorse continued operations or insist on withdrawal.

The conflict, now in its 59th day, has already consumed $25 billion according to Pentagon figures released this week. Those costs include significant depletion of precision munitions, a factor that several lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have flagged as a long-term risk to readiness. At Wednesday’s House Armed Services Committee session, Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine faced repeated demands for a clearer endgame after an exchange in which Rep. Adam Smith, a Washington Democrat, pressed for specifics on next steps only to receive responses that circled back to criticism of past nuclear negotiations.

Hegseth’s tone in the House was combative. He described “the reckless, feckless and defeatist words of congressional Democrats and some Republicans” as the military’s most immediate adversary, a remark that drew sharp rebukes from lawmakers including Rep. Pat Ryan, a West Point graduate representing a New York district. Several Democrats highlighted the reported bombing of a school that killed children and questioned the shifting public justifications for the campaign. Hegseth dismissed much of the criticism as political theater, at one point appearing to struggle when pressed on whether troops would be required to follow unlawful orders, an apparent reference to public statements by some Democratic figures.

Yet the underlying policy dispute extends beyond rhetoric. Iran’s new supreme leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, issued a written statement read on state television Wednesday declaring that the Islamic Republic would safeguard its nuclear and missile programs as “national assets.” He added that foreigners operating in the Persian Gulf “have no place in it except at the bottom of its waters.” The remarks arrived as diplomatic efforts between Washington and Tehran remain stalled, reinforcing the administration’s argument that sustained pressure is required to prevent a nuclear breakout.

Independent Sen. Angus King of Maine, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, indicated he intends to focus on concrete operational questions rather than partisan recriminations. His approach may set a different tone from the House hearing, where follow-up inquiries often produced circular answers or pivots to the courage of President Trump. Senate Republicans, led by Chairman Roger Wicker of Mississippi, are expected to steer discussion toward the long-term industrial base. Wicker has emphasized the need to rebuild American manufacturing capacity for munitions and advanced systems, an effort that aligns with the proposed budget’s emphasis on domestic production and job creation in defense-related sectors.

The fiscal dimension looms large. A $25 billion supplemental expenditure in less than two months represents real trade-offs for taxpayers already facing record national debt. Critics on the left treat the expense primarily as evidence of reckless policy. Yet the alternative of returning to the pattern of sanctions relief and diplomatic concessions that characterized earlier administrations has left Iran emboldened, as evidenced by its continued enrichment activities and proxy operations. Thomas Sowell’s long-standing observation that incentives matter applies here: when adversaries conclude that American restraint signals weakness, the eventual bill, measured in both dollars and strategic position, tends to rise.

Congress itself bears responsibility for the current predicament. The War Powers Resolution was intended to restore legislative check on executive war-making, yet lawmakers have spent decades selectively enforcing or ignoring it according to partisan convenience. The approaching deadline therefore tests more than the Trump administration. It tests whether Congress retains the will to deliberate seriously on the use of force or will continue the habit of outsourcing hard choices while reserving the right to criticize outcomes.

Hegseth’s Senate testimony will likely revisit the same terrain covered in the House: munitions stocks, civilian casualties, allied coordination and exit criteria. Republicans will stress the necessity of confronting a regime that has spent decades building asymmetric threats across the Middle East. Democrats will emphasize the absence of explicit authorization and the risk of open-ended entanglement. The $1.5 trillion budget request adds another layer. At such scale, every inefficiency or misallocation carries magnified consequences for future readiness.

What remains clear is that the United States cannot indefinitely sustain high-intensity conflict without either decisive results or renewed public consent expressed through Congress. The Iranian leadership’s latest threats suggest it has little interest in accommodation on terms that would preclude weaponization. Hegseth’s task on Thursday is to demonstrate that the administration’s approach accounts for both the immediate military realities and the broader requirement that policy remain grounded in measurable costs, constitutional boundaries and a realistic appraisal of the adversary’s incentives. Whether senators elicit that clarity or settle for familiar partisan exchanges will shape the next phase of this conflict.