Hegseth Defends Iran War Strategy as Senate Grills Him on Costs, Firings and Legality

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told senators Thursday that a ceasefire in place since early April has paused the 60-day clock under the War Powers Resolution requiring congressional approval for continued operations against Iran. The hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee came one day after a similarly contentious session in the House and highlighted deep partisan divisions over both the conduct of the conflict and Hegseth's stewardship of the Pentagon.

Hegseth responded directly to questions from Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, who noted that Friday would mark 60 days since President Trump notified Congress of strikes that began March 2. The 1973 law requires the president to end the use of American forces unless Congress authorizes an extension. Hegseth said the administration views the current truce as having halted that timeline. A senior official reinforced that active hostilities had terminated, even as diplomats pursue a longer-term agreement. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz continues to disrupt global energy flows and raise costs for families far from the region, a point several senators raised as evidence of broader economic consequences.

The testimony reflected the administration's conviction that decisive action prevented Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold. Hegseth repeatedly credited Trump for showing the resolve previous presidents lacked. He argued that any financial burden or loss of life must be weighed against the far greater risk of a nuclear-armed regime that had spent years building proxies and enriching uranium. This framing echoes a consistent theme in conservative thought that threats to national security cannot be wished away through diplomacy alone when adversaries show no interest in good-faith negotiation.

Democrats pressed for greater clarity on costs, duration, and exit strategy. Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island said the United States found itself in a worse position than before the strikes, citing casualties, damaged bases, lower morale among troops, and higher prices for gasoline and fertilizer worldwide. Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan questioned whether the Pentagon was considering using service members at polling stations during November's midterm elections, an idea that drew sharp scrutiny over potential implications for domestic politics and civil liberties. Hegseth rejected suggestions that the operation had become a quagmire comparable to past conflicts in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan. He called such characterizations defeatist and insisted the mission's objectives remained limited and achievable.

Republicans on the committee voiced their own growing unease, though largely focused on personnel decisions rather than the war itself. Since taking office, Hegseth has removed, retired, or reassigned roughly a dozen senior officers, including the first female commandant of the Coast Guard, the head of the Army's Chaplain Corps, a four-star general in charge of training and transformation, and most recently Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers and other GOP lawmakers have privately worried that firing leaders in the middle of active operations risks instability at a critical time. Critics inside and outside the Pentagon describe the pace as unusual and potentially ideological. Supporters counter that the changes target entrenched bureaucracies more concerned with diversity mandates and climate initiatives than with lethality and readiness. The firings align with the administration's stated goal of restoring a military focused on merit, deterrence, and winning wars rather than serving as a vehicle for social experimentation.

The hearing grew heated when Sen. Elizabeth Warren raised reports that Hegseth or associates had sought to profit from defense stocks before the conflict escalated. Citing a Financial Times story about a broker and a BlackRock fund, Warren suggested possible ethical violations. Hegseth cut her off sharply. "That entire story is false, has been from the beginning, and was made up out of whole cloth," he said. He added that no one owns him or the department and that his only interest lies in effective service to the country. The exchange drew attention for its intensity and for Hegseth's insistence that such accusations distract from the real work of defending American interests.

A protester briefly interrupted the proceedings by calling Hegseth a war criminal before being removed. The episode underscored the emotional temperature surrounding American involvement in yet another Middle East conflict. Outside the hearing room, global markets continue to register the effects of uncertainty in the Gulf. Families in the United States are paying higher prices at the pump and the grocery store, outcomes that illustrate the inescapable trade-offs of using military power to shape events abroad.

The $1.5 trillion defense budget request for fiscal year 2027 also drew questions. Some lawmakers from both parties expressed concern about the price tag at a time of rising deficits. Hegseth defended the figure as necessary to rebuild stockpiles depleted by the Iran operation and to deter future adversaries who have watched American willingness to act.

Thursday's session revealed the limits of consensus even within the president's own party. While most Republicans continue to back the original decision to strike, the personnel shake-ups and open-ended economic costs have prompted quiet second-guessing. Democrats, meanwhile, used the hearings to portray the administration as reckless and lacking a coherent plan. Hegseth gave no ground on the central point that Iran posed an intolerable danger and that Trump acted where others had hesitated. Whether the ceasefire holds and whether Congress will be asked to formally authorize any extension remain open questions that will shape the next phase of this chapter in American foreign policy. The administration's position that the clock has stopped provides it breathing room, but legal scholars and lawmakers on both sides suggest the dispute could eventually land in the courts.

Throughout the day Hegseth projected confidence that the mission's core goals had been met and that further escalation was unnecessary. His performance drew mixed reviews, with allies praising his refusal to yield to what they saw as partisan sniping and detractors arguing he offered few specifics on how the administration plans to stabilize the region or contain the economic fallout. The hearings have made one fact plain: the debate over the Iran operation is far from over, even as the immediate fighting has paused.